tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695482415842956162.post5809395900437794579..comments2010-09-22T12:25:46.369+01:00Comments on Valley Forge: Common misconceptions, Rand, and reasonablenessFifihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10673483972477295864noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695482415842956162.post-27915488341496832612009-05-06T23:48:00.000+01:002009-05-06T23:48:00.000+01:00I would agree that often the bad ideas are vague, ...I would agree that often the bad ideas are vague, and so it's harder to have some mutant copy of that idea that is a clear misconception. It's not that people *want* to have misconceptions, but it's hard to tell when they *do* because the idea is vague.<br /><br />WRT reasonableness, I'm not sure whether it's actually that often being used in a compromise sense; it's more down to the inability of the interlocutor to perceive the values/principles by which you are making your argument - possibly because they're subtle/unclear principles, or possibly because they are unwilling to accept that you hold such principles. If I make an argument that draws on some principle not known to you, it may appear to you as if my logic is unsound, and therefore that I am not being 'reasonable.' The negative connotations come from the interlocutor's belief that their own values and argument from those values are correct, and therefore that you either don't share the values (which means your values must be wrong) or that your argument is unsound. It's a refusal - or at least, an unwillingness - to accept fallibility on their own part.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com