Proven wrong. Is it so bad?

[Yip]

Assuming you know what the other person means when it's not the actual meaning of the words they said is not a terribly productive way to debate. The way I typically respond is to take the words they used to mean exactly what they say, unless the person specifically states that they are using the words in some sort of non-literal way. In this way, I'm not assuming anything in what they mean beyond the actual meaning of the words. After all, I can't be expected to read their mind, I am forced to go by the words as presented.

 If I state an objection based on that, is it then up to that person to either clarify what they meant or show why I am mistaken or admit that they were mistaken.  This IS the most productive way to debate when everyone responds this way. However, that's typically not the response I get. Instead it seems most people take it as some kind of offense, how dare I suggest that they might be wrong! But it's not a horrible thing to be proven wrong. (see I tied it back in to the topic )

If you actually are proven wrong, then the correct response is to admit it, or at the very least quit insisting that you are right. And if you not wrong, then you should be able to provide some kind of reason or evidence to back it up (a clarification of meaning would count). Otherwise you have no place trying to convince other people you are right, and it's foolish for you to think that other people should accept your position.  <---- [Edit, just wanted to point out for clarity that I'm talking very generally here and it's not referencing anything in particular.]

Something my psychology professor said today really fits in with my opinion on this. He said "In science, we aren't proving anything. We set up our tests in a way that might disprove our hypothesis. If we fail to disprove it enough it begins to be accepted."

Note: Slightly paraphrased.

That's true. People often say things like "prove it". But really, proof only applies to things like mathematics where an absolute answer can be achieved. In the real world, we must go by evidence.  However, the colloquial meaning of the word "proof" is still often used. And I hesitate to say it's used incorrectly since it even shows up in phrases like "burden of proof". Really, that should probably be "burden of providing sufficient evidence", but that doesn't sound as catchy

[Serra Belvoule]

@Serra: So am I correct that you meant to compare "proving someone wrong" and "trolling/harassing"?
If so, I can see that, and I agree. But there is a big difference between "being proven wrong" and "proving someone wrong". And this was the source of my confusion.

Yes, that was my point, but also seen from the one being proven wrong. How many people you know that take offense on a comment on how they "missed a spot", or make a huge stink on a mistake that's been pointed out of them?
I think society isn't teaching some of us how to cope with this.

[Itico]

The problem with being an intelligent, observant and understanding-I would not go as far as to say wise-person is that you tend not to be wrong very often.  However, this very sort of person is very likely to be the type of person who will admit that they are wrong, if provably able.  If it is regarding something unprovable, then right and wrong are a judgement call, subjective and otherwise an opinion that should be treated as such.

Far to many people take a debate as an attack on their authority.  Their ego says that the are right and when you say they are wrong you are attacking them personally.  Logically, to them at least: I am right->You disagree with me->Therefore you are not right.

The most severe are those who will not listen to argument and will never be convinced.

If you can change a person'q perspective, however, they can be much easier to persuade.  For instance, those who become injured often have a greater understanding of those they may not have otherwise considered before, such as the plight of people who are confined to wheelchairs.  Until that happens, however, few people can, or want to, relate.

I have said for years that I like being wrong, and in many cases this holds true.  However, in some very particular cases, such as examination questions, being wrong can be very annoying.

Peace.

[Serra Belvoule]

Well, Itico, I agree that a person who's amounted a certain experience will tend to make less mistakes on areas they know, but part of being "wise, smart" and the such also involves a great deal of experiencing new things and trying out what's not been tried out before. It can something as big as a mars colony, or something small like asking a new flavor of icecream next time.
Small changes leads towards great deeds.

[Itico]

This is true.

That is why I advocate for people to get off the computer, at least once a day, and go out and do something.  Walk around the block, walk the neighbor's dog, heck, walk the neighbor, read random book spines at the library, anything to expand your experience.

The more you learn, the more you can understand.

[Serra Belvoule]

... and now I feel like one of those "The more you know" thingies 
But back on topic!

[Yip]

I am right->You disagree with me->Therefore you are not right.

I've been accused of doing that. That because I view myself as a logic person I therefore think my logic cannot be wrong. Which is not it at all. It's not being arrogant, and it's not being circular.  It's like I explained to this person, if the logic is valid and the premises are true, then the conclusion must be correct. To assume that there are flaws there even when you cannot see any and when you've done your best to avoid them, completely destroys the logical process.

I don't say "you are wrong because you disagree with me", I say "you are wrong because your position is flawed here and here." But I guess some people don't like that straight forward no nonsense approach. Myself, I prefer it.  If I'm wrong, I want to know so I can correct it. Preferably demonstrated in a logical fashion (i.e. "proven" wrong).  If there is a flaw in my logic, or if I've used a flawed premise, and someone demonstrates this to me, I'd be more than happy to admit that I was wrong.

Of course, I'd rather be right in the first place. But being proven wrong is much preferable to staying wrong.

[Itico]

I think that we could run out a good number of cases which show where good logic lead to bad, or wrong, results.  Just look at the law books.

Like you, I would rather be shown where I went wrong.  There's just not enough of that going around.

[Serra Belvoule]

Why yes, Itico! Nowadays it's not so much about doing the right thing but doing things that fall into the list of "Things I can do because there's no law against"...
I hear there's people who actually abuse this and that's why they make some pretty much weird laws, like walking around swinging a chainsaw