mdk said
. In the case of 'proof,' that comes from the fact that a person who tries to prove every damn thing in the world *must* believe he every damn thing in the world. Such a person is probably even more insufferable than I am.
Right, but a person who does go about proving everything the world, will either have an "incredible track record" or would have to admit being wrong and would be better off for it. I think the mistake here is to err on the side of caution in trying not to upset people by avoiding expressing different beliefs. The rail road analogy is also warped as that's simply a matter of conserving resources due to cost, unless you're implying that we're spending far too much energy communicating then i'm going to say that it's not really applicable here. It's bringing the argument to a point of hyperbole for the sake of it.
But let's say that hammering rail road stakes has a potential damage, well then! Now we're onto something. I'd say where it's a good idea not to is at junctions on the track, when someone is directly lying in-between the point of the stake and where you're forcefully hammering it into, and when a train is coming your way. Those seem like bad times to do it.
But, if you really want to boil it down, i'd say we might be at an empasse between talking our differences, and avoiding them. If we really put priority (for whatever reason) on railroad stakes effectively, through healthy communication, we'd probably have better designs in rails somewhere down the line. So we're better off. If we didn't engage in it due to our failing skills at communicating effectively at one another, we could have two opposing political parties arguing about taxes on rail roads and "discrimination on lacking funds for rails in my area", or whatever the arguing may be. If we were to put it into an international perspective, the failure to communcate on rail roads could be Putin threatening to enter more of eastern europe and asia to monolopize on their rail stakes, and an angry opposing country funding insurgents and opposing governmental parties to try and mitigate this.
But hey ,rail road stakes, amirite.
Back to effort in communication though, the problem arises is when one side is forcing their beliefs on someone. Which is an opinion + emotional anchors to said opinion, that particular belief is important to the person's construct of the world, and where they lie in place with it. It would be emotionally hurting to change it, as they've just had so much effort and energy expended on that particular opinion that it's now a fully solid belief, and it might leave them quite traumatized if they were to lose it and not gain the required support without it. Totally understandable - and also totally explainable of why someone might try and forcefully or aggressively make others conceit to it, in order to get validation for a belief, if they feel it getting attacked, or sense it's oncoming internal weakness, so fall for the ol' "If others believe it, it makes it so" alluring answer. Dangit I know this one too well, as I'm often left quite on my own with a lot of my beliefs, and man do you have to fight that unreasonable level of doubt that can sometimes come around when you do try and communicate it, fail to do so, and have the person challenge you on a platform you cannot simply express yourself on, as it's too far from their own beliefs. We all experience this.
But, we're not talking about opinions, we're talking about facts, or proof that support an argument, and they need to be explained in the other person's opposing worldview, or it's them that are failing to communicate properly. Anyone who does this, at the best case scenario, will be arguing with someone who understands this, and knows more effectively to align their opponents value to the idea, as to not harm his other beliefs or world-views, and encourage the opposing side to have some sort of reform on the particular manner. Which only comes from good communication, and the best form of communication is received information (like a photograph, or something pretty quantifiable), than perceived information (talking through words with bias associations we all have from our diverse upbringings in diverse environments).
Even better, it's to have the person come up to the challenge to demonstrate his point in an effective manner (scientifically literate manner), and then to either have him contribute, or at least watch you demonstrate your manner. As that's what's called 1st person experience, which will always change a person, even if they go through the 5 stages of loss like "I experienced my wife cheating on me" resulting in the destruction of the belief that "My wife loves me and is faithful to me by code of marriage".
When the means to do so is costly however, then you try less costly ways, such as a simulation that reasonably accounts for the factors involved.
Anything that cannot be proven though, should merely be attempted to with good sportsmanship, and until then should be left as more of a "who cares, let us find out when/if we prove it".
The latter matter should be communicated to at least find a mutual understanding of one another, and both proof and opinion should only be demonstrated when it goes beyond the downside of "oh I might be unsettled that my beliefs are being challenged".
Example:
"I can murder you. Let me demonstrate"
