In an argument, when does one have the right to cross the line of agreeing to disagree and stating his ....?

Question

In an argument, when does one have the right to cross the line of agreeing to disagree and stating his opinion as the only correct one; obviously if there are facts to back that up. But what is the minimum strength required to establish these facts as solid enough to turn one's opinion from a mere opinion into THE correct opinion? And should someone still disagree even if he is shown incontrovertible facts against his argument. Also, should one accept that the facts someone else is claiming in an argument are true just because that person claims so- or should one ask for verification before continuing the argument (or for that matter should he not take them into consideration at all!?)

Answer 1

The Hawking Paradox is a good example of what you are discussing here. For over 30 years, Stephen believed that his Black Hole Equation confirmed that there was information being lost into black holes. Physicists around the world world were in disagreement, but Stephen's math was very elegant and compelling to the point that no one could debase it. However, recently it has shown that his findings may very well be, if not incorrect, at least inconclusive.

My point behind all of this is to say that anyone who engages in absolute correctness is closing their mind to possibilities. That line should be carefully avoided.

[add] It should be added that Stephen Himself is the one who finally abandoned his argument that he was correct. He is currently working on the proof of this. Leonard Susskind has done the leading work in this area.

[To Graham] I can prove that 1+1=0, and 1, and 2, and 3, and 11, and 110.

Answer 2

If someone argues that 1+1=3 then you have a perfect right to state as a fact that 1+1=2 because it can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

If you are arguing about creation, eveolution or religion in which there is ano absolute proof then you have to end up prerared to differ even if your case, on balance of the evidence as you see it, is correct.

The alternative is a never ending argument or bad feling on both sides.

Answer 3

One can disagree without agreeing to do so. There are only two facets to an argument: facts and opinions. If one is in possession of a fact, then it is no longer an opinion. A correct opinion is one where the holder does not know he is correct, but just happens to be so.

The other person can do whatever the hell he wants. 'What a fool believes, he sees.' -Doobie Bros.

Answer 4

I don't think it's a matter of 'rights'. In an argument you believe what you want and your opponent believes what he/she wants. Whether you resolve your argument or not is immaterial. Who is to say what is correct and what is not? People with closed minds choose to think that what they believe is 'correct'. The open minded realise that there is more than one definition of correctness. They either argue for the fun of it or don't bother to argue at all - leaving others to get on with it. It's rare to find someone argued away from their own personal point of view anyway. We're all pretty entrenched in our own beliefs.

Answer 5

It is enough that you believe, and acknowledge the right of others to do so. Trolls offer no alternative, no argument, merely aggresive vitriol, always for the sake of attention, and usually because they have little fear of retribution as dignity and self respect are not impediments that they fear whatsoever. The Truth is Absolute, within each man, sufficient for him to free himself from the cvhains that bind him to a life of sufferance drudgery and endurance.

The objective for the anti-gods is to contain humanity in a box, from where they struggle to free themselves but never do. The Anti God gains and profits much from human suffering. He does not have kindredness to the human soul, or an affinity with the holy spirit that would aggrieve him if humanity suffered in the way that God is wounded by the same.....Food For Thought. The Truth stands as an eternal immovable mountain. They who see it, believe and freed, others bicker and heckle and remain in hell, and unfortunately ensuring others around them do likewise....Life...

Answer 6

dont let someone "work" you up so hard. How do you know he wasn;'t doing it just to see your reaction, if I find a conversation is so ridiculous, I let it go.............you may have just spent 30 minutes arguing with a mentally retarded person

Answer 7

I find it helpful to consider the source of my aggravation. Some people want to believe what they want to believe regardless of your 'facts'.

Answer 8

do you mean that it's possible that my opinion might not be the only correct one?!

Imagine that...!?