FWIW, critical thinking is CRUCIAL! A lot of times I find people are not interested in dialog, they just want to voice their opinion and are very susceptible to confirmation bias. E.g. I'm involved in animal rights with emphasis on how animal ag negatively affects the environment. There's a movement of people who talk about how animal ag can help the environment. I find that when I share research that shows that this isn't true, they'll ignore addressing the research (even though I explicitly ask for counter evidence or faulty reasoning on my part) and digress into other issues like human population. Alternatively, when I raise questions about things they post, they tend to ignore answering the question, which tells me they are just parroting something that confirms their bias and haven't really thought independently about what they are posting.
I don't think coming to a conclusion, i.e. whether one thing is right or wrong, should be a goal. Cuz in order to do that, the parties involved would have to take into account all different aspects of the subject, which would be impossible. Rather, the best we can hope for is that rational people will consider the arguments and evidence (pro/con) objectively. Afterall, no one like to be wrong in front of a bunch of strangers.
In my opinion, there is currently a clear need to exchange ideas and discuss even unpleasant topics.
However, in my opinion, there is no real platform on the Internet that enables or even encourages serious discussions.
Twitter with its 140 characters is a very good example of this, and comment functions like those on YouTube are sometimes used for diksussions, but rather rarely.
What is probably also needed in a real discussion is a moderator and the possibility to discuss topics rather than writing long comments.
FWIW, critical thinking is CRUCIAL! A lot of times I find people are not interested in dialog, they just want to voice their opinion and are very susceptible to confirmation bias. E.g. I'm involved in animal rights with emphasis on how animal ag negatively affects the environment. There's a movement of people who talk about how animal ag can help the environment. I find that when I share research that shows that this isn't true, they'll ignore addressing the research (even though I explicitly ask for counter evidence or faulty reasoning on my part) and digress into other issues like human population. Alternatively, when I raise questions about things they post, they tend to ignore answering the question, which tells me they are just parroting something that confirms their bias and haven't really thought independently about what they are posting.
I don't think coming to a conclusion, i.e. whether one thing is right or wrong, should be a goal. Cuz in order to do that, the parties involved would have to take into account all different aspects of the subject, which would be impossible. Rather, the best we can hope for is that rational people will consider the arguments and evidence (pro/con) objectively. Afterall, no one like to be wrong in front of a bunch of strangers.
Thanks for your comment.
In my opinion, there is currently a clear need to exchange ideas and discuss even unpleasant topics.
However, in my opinion, there is no real platform on the Internet that enables or even encourages serious discussions.
Twitter with its 140 characters is a very good example of this, and comment functions like those on YouTube are sometimes used for diksussions, but rather rarely.
What is probably also needed in a real discussion is a moderator and the possibility to discuss topics rather than writing long comments.