Blaming students of a system of dogma for flaws in the system of dogma

[Boojatta]

If a system of dogma includes the claim that some conclusions can be obtained from some assumptions, then at least two kinds of problems can arise. One kind of problem is that a student may say, "I don't see how, using those assumptions, you can arrive at that conclusion." When this kind of problem arises, a dogmatist might accuse the student of being stupid.

Another kind of problem is that a student may say, "Using your assumptions, I have arrived at the following conclusions that you deny, oppose, and dislike." When this kind of problem arises, a dogmatist might accuse the student of having violated some unstated rules.

If dogmatists simply stated their conclusions without trying to justify the conclusions, then maybe there would be less blame and less interpersonal conflict.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. I hope you are using your amazing brain to get

a PHD in theology or something. Once again, I find your post completely inscrutable. That's not an insult..it is a bit of humility on my part.

Take it when you can get it. I'm a proud old broad.

[Boojatta]

2. I would prefer to hear that you understand exactly what I mean

and that you conclude that if I have any dream of getting a Ph.D. in theology then I should just forget about it.

Once again, I find your post completely inscrutable. That's not an insult..it is a bit of humility on my part.

Is it an insult or is it a bit of humility on your part? I'm more interested in the question than in any particular answer.

Consider a general situation. Some reader has trouble with some message. What might be the problem? In no particular sequence, here are a few possibilities:

1. The reader thinks, "The message I am getting is something that is very obviously true. Nobody would bother to say something that obvious, so I must be failing to understand what the person is trying to say." However, maybe somebody would bother to say something that obvious.

2. The reader thinks, "I cannot understand what the writer is trying to say. I believe that the person is thinking coherently, but I suspect that the thoughts are too deep for me."

2a The thoughts are simply incoherent.
2b The thoughts are coherent, but the writer didn't do a good job of putting the thoughts into words.

[neebob]

3. For once I think I might sort of get what you're trying to say

Not that I'm a dogmatist, but I usually just state my conclusions with minimal justification, and I rarely get an argument. But I think it's more about being concise, direct, and using concrete examples. If your intent and thought process are clear and what you say makes sense and you don't say it in an insulting way, there isn't much to argue with.

[Boojatta]

6. The purpose of the Original Post is to start a discussion.

If you do not provide justification for your conclusions, then there's not much basis for a discussion.

I was wrestling with some complications that would probably have been inappropriate until after I had some feedback. So I brought the OP to an early end with these words:

If dogmatists simply stated their conclusions without trying to justify the conclusions, then maybe there would be less blame and less interpersonal conflict.

There's some irony there. I could have said, "Dogmatists are unable to provide any genuine justification for their conclusions. So if they stopped pretending to provide justification for their conclusions, then there would be less occasion for them to exchange bitter words with people."

Instead, I presented my proposal for how dogmatists should communicate as though it were simply a method for avoiding emotional turmoil.

Here's an analogy. One could say that, after France's early defeat in the Second World War, there was a lot of disappointment, sadness, fear, confusion, concern that the defeat was caused by a conspiracy, etc. One could propose a way to avoid that kind of emotional turmoil in future: France should simply not have any armed forces. Of course, that's a joke.

[neebob]

7. Okay, so I didn't get what you were trying to say.

*Bitchslaps self*

Carry on! :)

[greyl]

4. Since when do dogmatists try

to justify their conclusions with anything other than their dogma? Isn't the dogma itself just a collection of foregone conclusions?
Why would this critically thinking student you describe give a shit?

"Nothing upsets a Bishop as much as the presence of a Saint in the parish." - D. Quinn

[Boojatta]

5. An attempt to answer your questions

Since when do dogmatists try to justify their conclusions with anything other than their dogma?

Dogmatists claim to possess the truth. They try to persuade people that it is the truth. If they simply wanted to explore the consequences of some specified hypotheses, then there wouldn't be any problem that I can see.

Isn't the dogma itself just a collection of foregone conclusions?

I don't know. I think dogmas can be rather complicated and somewhat interesting.

Why would this critically thinking student you describe give a shit?

A can think of two possible reasons right now and I could probably think of additional possibilities if you wish.

1. Suppose the critically thinking student is trying to earn a Ph.D. in theology. What if the people who evaluate the student's academic work are dogmatists?

2. The critically thinking student might want to communicate with beginning students of the dogma to help them avoid being deceived. A critical mass of people interested in the dogma is likely to be dominated by people who don't see and/or don't want to see flaws in the dogma. So a critically thinking student might have difficulty establishing an organization to preserve and build on the critical thoughts of the critically thinking student. There might also be difficulty getting into communication with beginning students of the dogma.

"Nothing upsets a Bishop as much as the presence of a Saint in the parish." - D. Quinn

That quote is new to me and I like it.

An additional point: we're likely to be more interested in what we think is true than in any one particular error. However, familiarity with actual errors can help one to avoid making similar errors. Perhaps a single organization could be dedicated to critical thinking (research and education) about a variety of different dogmas.