Freedomain Radio

I discovered Stef and this site several years ago.  Since then I've seen a lot of critiques of Stef's work in the form of message board posts here, debates, off-site blogs, etc. I don't think it would be controversial to say that these number in the hundreds, and more likely thousands, now.  Even if most of the critiques were weak, just statistically from the volume alone it would be reasonable to expect a significant number would be well-reasoned and well-supported.  And in the face of strong criticism over the course of several years, I would expect someone who's open to it to reconsider some of their beliefts and in some cases change them.

But over the course of these years, I've never seen Stef say he was wrong about anything significant.  I've seen Stef make corrections, but I would describe them as minor or inconsequential to a larger point.  This video is an example of that:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3Hb5T5MufE  Stef says he may have been wrong but it's not "essential to the case".

Now I'm not making a claim that Stef hasn't admitted he was wrong about anything major, I just haven't seen it.  And that's why I've posted this.  I'd like to see examples of Stef admitting he was wrong or changing his stance on any of his major beliefs (i.e. the subjects of his books, his theories about anarchy, god, determinism, parenting/relationships, etc.).

Mental exercise to the board at large:

*How have your most core beliefs changed over the last year? 2 years? 5 years?
*Do you actively seek out things that may challenge your beliefs?  Does the effort and mental strain of rigorously evaluating counter evidence put you off from doing it? 
*Do you examine conflicting beliefs to the same depth as you do your own?
*When you read or hear something that challenges your beliefs how do you feel?  Do you feel negative emotions or are you curious?  Do you immediately go on the attack without having properly evaluated the evidence?  Do you seek ways to avoid having to deal with the evidence, such as finding fault with the messsenger instead of the message?
*To what degree does the person making the argument change your process of evaluating it?  Do you let your "argumentative guard" down with certain people and more easily accept what they have to say?
*How would you feel if someone who had influenced your beliefs renounced them?  How would this affect the your confidence in those beliefs?
*What would it mean for your life to change some of your most core beliefs?
*How similar do you think your beliefs in a year will be to the beliefs you have now? 2 years? 5 years?

Why is this important to you?

As for your questions, I'd say that my core beliefs (anarchism, atheism, etc.) have not changed much this year, or even over the last 5 years, but before that, yes.  I was your basic conservative/libertarian.  I'd always been pro-market, but had no idea about the true nature of statism (i.e., gangsterism).  It's been a pretty rough road, emotionally, considering I am stuck working as a lawyer, and know quite clearly that my entire profession is an economic and moral cancer. 

I am always looking for contrary arguments.  I'd be thrilled if I came across one.  The anti-Obama fervor has reignited some fundamental discussions around the Web on market freedom, but I have not seen anything truly new on that front in years. 

My core beliefs make my daily life almost intolerable.  It would be far easier to change them than it would be to change the mountain of law school debt I live under, or sweep away the enormous web of statist restrictions that clog up the economy, ruin our urban design, keep us poor and take our opportunities.  If I could make the daily crisis I experience of having to work to pay off debt as a lawyer, which I despise, I would.  In other words, I have every economic and personal incentive imaginable to change my beliefs, but I couldn't do that, because they're not actually "beliefs."  They are truth.  It would be like trying to unlearn the germ theory of disease.  I can't pretend I don't understand basic microbiology, and thus make it easier to go about my day pretending disease is caused by spontaneous generation, or something.

Magnus:

Why is this important to you?

I think it could be useful to someone who has an interest in critiquing Stef's work.  If that person's goal is to convince Stef that he is incorrect about something, but there is no empirical evidence of Stef being receptive to criticism, then that person may choose to invest their time and energy elsewhere.

Actually, I remember being converted to a nonvoting position life, live on the air, by the indomitable Wendy McElroy :)

I've also done an entire show reading out corrections to one of my shows:

I'm sure there are a bunch more, of course

Water's been around long enough to be aware of those.

Besides, he's got a moving-goalposts argument already queued up: Those corrections aren't "enough", Stef.

A big implication from Water seems to be that he wants to get Stef to change his mind about something, but instead of presenting an argument that might convince him, (about whatever it is) Water presents a supposition that argument would be futile because Stef is not open to anything of the sort.

I don't like Water's approach because it's too sly, like a generalization with no focus or specificity that can be dealt with directly, and so the only way to respond is to respond to some implication in his post, which has to be based on some guessed or assumed interpretation.

Smells bad, Water. Hit the nail on the head, if you have a nail and something to hit it with. 

GregG:

Water's been around long enough to be aware of those.

Besides, he's got a moving-goalposts argument already queued up: Those corrections aren't "enough", Stef.

Greg,

I understand where your "moving-goalposts" concern comes from.  I hope you can also understand how difficult it is to create objective and all-encompasing criteria when talking about something like this.  To help distinguish, I gave an example of something I didn't consider significant, and other things that I did.  Do you agree that corrections can vary in degree of importance given an objective?  For example, the prosecution in a murder case claims that seven of the defendants fingerprints were found on the murder weapon.  What would be more meaningful to the verdict, if the prosecution later made a correction and said that there were only six of the defendant's prints, or that they were in fact not his fingerprints at all?

The best I can do in terms of objective criteria would be this:  FDR is largely built around ideas about god, anarchy, ethics, and relationships.  Stef's books are the most detailed source of these beliefs.  I would consider a correction to be "significant" if it comes in conflict with the theories put forth in those books.

So putting Stef's examples up against the above criteria, would you consider them in conflict with any of Stef's theories?

Water:

Even if most of the critiques were weak, just statistically from the volume alone it would be reasonable to expect a significant number would be well-reasoned and well-supported.

The argument falls right here. Why can we assume this from volume?

There have, for example, been 2000 years worth of arguments for the Christian god. That doesn't mean that any of the arguments is true. The existence of the Christian god is a simple contradiction in terms, regardless of the volume of pro-theist arguments put forward. A rational person, therefore, would be under no obligation to revise his/her beliefs about same.

Testudines:

A big implication from Water seems to be that he wants to get Stef to change his mind about something, but instead of presenting an argument that might convince him, (about whatever it is) Water presents a supposition that argument would be futile because Stef is not open to anything of the sort.

You presume I haven't.  I haven't been shy with my opinions on this site.  For example, I think UPB is terribly flawed.  My latest post on the subject starts on this page:  http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/p/33847/261461.aspx.  Feel free to respond, but I ask you do it on that thread.

Testudines:

I don't like Water's approach because it's too sly, like a generalization with no focus or specificity that can be dealt with directly, and so the only way to respond is to respond to some implication in his post, which has to be based on some guessed or assumed interpretation.

Let's say I work at a company with hundreds of employees.  They claim to be an "equal opportunity employer".  I have a couple of black friends who want to apply for a job, and then I realize, I've seen hundreds of black people come in and interview for jobs, yet I've never personally seen a black person working here.  I wonder, are they really considering black people for employment?  It's a big company, maybe I just haven't met them, I'll ask around.  I don't see anything "sly" about that.

Charlotte:

Water:

Even if most of the critiques were weak, just statistically from the volume alone it would be reasonable to expect a significant number would be well-reasoned and well-supported.

The argument falls right here. Why can we assume this from volume?

I said it's a "reasonable" assumption, not a 100% fact.  Would it be more reasonable to assume that not even a tiny minority of the critics have intelligence or reasoned arguments?  Again, with such a large number of critiques, even if 99% are garbage, that still leaves a lot of strong arguments.  I'd also ask you to consider the possibility that Stef's critics may even be of higher quality than your average Joe.  How many people in a room of one hundred random people do you think would voluntarily seek out Stef's books and read them?

Water:

FDR is largely built around ideas about god, anarchy, ethics, and relationships

I'd submit that FDR is largely built around a methodology of reason and evidence as applied to government and relationships, and that god (atheism), anarcistic government and relationships are merely effects.

Would you argue that Stef has been unwavering in his beliefs for say, twenty five years?

Water:

Charlotte:

Water:

Even if most of the critiques were weak, just statistically from the volume alone it would be reasonable to expect a significant number would be well-reasoned and well-supported.

The argument falls right here. Why can we assume this from volume?

 

I said it's a "reasonable" assumption, not a 100% fact.  Would it be more reasonable to assume that not even a tiny minority of the critics have intelligence or reasoned arguments?  Again, with such a large number of critiques, even if 99% are garbage, that still leaves a lot of strong arguments.  I'd also ask you to consider the possibility that Stef's critics may even be of higher quality than your average Joe.  How many people in a room of one hundred random people do you think would voluntarily seek out Stef's books and read them?

You've not addressed my question; instead you have simply begged your own question.

If you have personally seen or know of any arguments which you think detonate Stef's positions, please bring them forward, instead of merely implying that Stef is closed off to a criticism which you only assume exists.

I won't speak for Stef, but I would be very interested in seeing such arguments, because if the principles I have accepted on reason and evidence are wrong, then I would appreciate the chance to act on valid corrections.

There was a time where I put my energies trying to find flaws in Stef as a way to dismiss his arguments. I did find a few, (his hair, particularities about his distaste for merengue and salsa music, his arguments about Star Trek). I found no way to use these flaws to disregard his other arguments about relationships, the state and culture. They were just not relevant. That's when I stopped looking at the man and decided to battle the arguments. They won. I accept most of these arguments Stef has maintained for years and has not needed to revise. It would really be exciting if I ran up against arguments that invalidated them. I've been on the boards these many years and have read many attempts to get UPB or anarchy. I think they've failed.

It's not about Stef at all. Stef could grow hair and make a video dancing salsa tomorrow, and even dress up like Lieutenant Uhura, and this wouldn't change a thing.

I must admit that I did have a bet with myself - someone comes along saying that I may have a problem admitting when the evidence goes against me – I provide evidence to the contrary, and the accuser does not respond.

projection 101