Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cat King Cole
Even once we're "certain", that "certainty" has a limit: we still always allow for our opinions to be wrong, opening up the possibility that we haven't considered something; up until the point we've built a perfectly defensible fortress of logic in our minds (Egbert and Labcoat are the best examples of this on the forum).
Egbert being you? This is something I've noticed in you too at any rate.
I also notice that there's a tendency in Alpha, specifically the NTs, to set up a scheme of correlative logic by means of analogy. Normally this wouldn't annoy me, but what tends to annoy me about the Ti way of doing this is that they create their own basis for how the analogy is supposed to work, which goes back to what OP said about clarifying the basis for arguments. What annoys me about this is that firstly it feels like they ignore any other possible interpretations of the analogy, but more importantly it's like they're creating their own system for how the world is supposed to work. Then I'm not allowed to argue with them about it because it's their own system, and you can't argue the validity of the system because they've already proven that it's true to themselves.
The Niels Bohr quote against Einstein comes to mind: "No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical."