What I like about the forum format is that we can come back and revisit things. Moreover, we have the opportunity to think things over before responding (exactly as you're doing and as I've done) and we can include things and refine things, even change our minds in mid-sentence, if we think it's appropriate. We can go off, feed the kids, think some pleasant thoughts, consider things from other angles, and respond when we've figured out what we want to say.
In response to Zed, I'm aware that my view on intelligence and wisdom is at odds with the common view that they are distinct. I consider wisdom to be one component of intelligence, while most people consider the relationship between them to be something like "Intelligence is how well you think and wisdom is how well you apply your intelligence." I don't agree with the view, but I'm willing to accept it for the purpose of the conversation. (However, I'm bound to slip from time to time and I can only beg your pardon in advance.)
I agree with Wordwind on the importance of doubting, but with some proviso, which I have yet to formulate in a way that makes sense to me. I can only give an admittedly poor example of the principle. When I was in elementary school, I had trouble with basic math. I've said before I failed 2nd grade and during 3rd grade when they talked about math, they took me from class to the 1st grade end of the school - this despite the fact that my general mathematical abilities were quite good. I was a victim of the New Math. By Jr High, I was quicker - FAR quicker at basic arithmetic than anyone I knew. I could do things quicker in my head than most people could with a calculator - no kidding. My skills have atrophied over the years, but I can still do math pretty well in my head (my oldest daughter is quicker though). However, I never quite believed in multiplication. I just kept doing these things over and over ... I could have completely rejected what the teachers told me {very, very tempting}, but I didn't ... instead, I figured they must know something I didn't know (and it turned out I was right ... much later I learned about fields and groups and then things started making sense). It wasn't that I couldn't multiply. Like I said, I was really good at it and am still fairly good. But I didn't understand it. Two different things. I didn't reject what my teachers told me. I just had some feeling that there was something that was missing. Not really an argument against doubting, per se, so much as the reaction to one's doubt.
To continue my prefatory remarks,
5. My vocation is programming and my training is in computer engineering. And since I think analogy is a better way to communicate an idea than logic and because I think that one should try to stick with what knows, I'm going to make a case for something from a pov that is familiar to me. In engineering, one learns "The Problem-Solving Method." In every engineering class one learns some variant of Georg Polya's generalized technique. While the particulars may vary, though, by subject they really are all variations on the same theme AND THE FIRST STEP IS ALWAYS TO UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM. Sometimes one draws a diagram, but the purpose of drawing the diagram is to prepare one for understanding the problem. Everything is really riding on this step. One of the most common reasons for the failure of large software engineering projects is failure to adequately understand the problem before the "real work" begins. (Check out
http://sern.ucalgary.ca/~shroff/seng613/index1.htm and search for 'causes of failure'. This is just one source, but most sources will say something similar and I think these numbers are conservative.) The thing we learn in the classroom is that you can't solve a problem if you don't really know what the problem is. Imagine this scenario: two people get the assignment to build a bridge. One fellow spends two weeks in the library reviewing statics - that branch of applied physics pertaining to forces that produce equilibrium in physical systems. The other is more of a can-do guy. He immediately whips out a drawing, and goes to purchase materials with which to construct a bridge. He thinks the first guy is just making excuses not to get started. Sound funny? It would be if this exact scenario weren't repeated with such frequence in the world of software engineering. And yet, software systems, as complicated as they are (and some of them are among the most complicated things humans have ever created -- hard for me to judge really, but in my mind, some of this stuff is on par with the creation of the pyramids or what have you), as complicated as they are, I suspect they're pretty simple compared to human systems - cultures, societies, etc. Despite this, there are mitigating factors when dealing with societies - at least some of them - there is the capacity for self-correction in some of them (probably to some degree in most of them). I'm getting ahead of myself, though. The thrust of this is that it might feel good - like one is really making a lot of progress to get that drawing done, and go out and purchase the materials - to get down to brass tacks, but it's not necessarily the right thing to do to solve the problem.
There's this general belief, I think, that it doesn't matter why someone believes something so long as they behave the way we think they should behave. It doesn't matter why they disagree, but only THAT they disagree. A corollary - It doesn't matter that we misclassify a behavior (or as is actually the case 'the motivation for a behavior, statement, or belief') as 'pure ignorance.' My issue with this approach is that it may feel good, and it may even be true, but it's not the central problem and problems don't generally get solved until they are correctly identified.
6. I note that in many cases people are made to feel humiliated when they have made mistakes. Ah, we think, but they SHOULD feel humiliated. This view is a natural consequence of the societal value that manners only apply to those who are correct. After all manners are a mask for truth and truth is more important than mere feelings. This is almost always maintained by people who are convinced they are right. It's a lot easier to discount feelings, of course, when they are someone else's than when they are one's own.
Actually I hadn't meant to get into this one yet .... I'll leave this for now.
Synopsis of first five points:
1. Understanding a problem is vital to solving a problem. The more complicated a problem, the more important is that first step.
2. Pointing out someone else's ignorance seldom seems to be an accurate or important part of defining the problem.
3. Experience alone does not equate to knowledge or understanding or wisdom - with regards to sex, or drugs (or marriage or just about anything else).
4. Communication - even that part of communication called 'argument' - is or ought to considered "a two way street."
5. To rephrase what Van and Pfranz have said previously, scoring points isn't the same as making an argument.
k
