Perhaps an inquiry as to whether we are actually interested in a disagreement between you and Ken is more appropriate.
strange that you didn't seem to get anything out of your own consideration of this.

There are a great number of factors at play when we consider things on which people disagree. Pride of intellectual stature (I am smarter than you and therefore know more); pride of educational achievement(I have more years of education and have attained greater academic credentials, and therefore know more than you); pride of OEOs (I have Observed, Experienced and Opinionated on more things than have you, and therefore know more than you); and finally, pride of the unexpected, which includes those who are painfully insecure, but who can manipulate facts to their advantage or manufacture plausible deniability in support of their arguments. The current hubbub over gays in the military is one example of this.
在《观察家》看来，人们通常只是想在争论中获胜或在分歧中获胜，无论对错，因为赢比输感觉更好。你是否正确甚至没有那么重要。事实上，当你没有的时候会更有趣。
这个智人物种是善变的。而且它可能只是太聪明了，对自己没有好处。但这不是我说的……

Just Be
There are those who would argue the truth,
For me I would rather simply just be.
True,
=
MJA

DISAGREEMENT AS THERAPY
The idea was posited that we can improve ourselves through disagreement, because disagreement challenges our opinions, and makes us examine our positions, and, as intelligent, reasonably well-informed people, we will modify or even switch positions based on good arguments that are contrary to our positions.
This model only works for philosophers, and probably very few philosophers, at that. How many people ?in the real world? do you think follow this very sane, rational approach to epistemology? Statistically, none.
The need to be ?right? is the most powerful, essential, human instinct. God and religion were invented to provide confirmation of what humans think is ?right,? to fulfill that need, and to give assurances about those ideas. [The other reason for the invention was to provide an object for our love.]
No one changes their opinion without coercion. It is not enough that there IS a Chinese restaurant on State Street; whoever says there isn?t, will scramble for an excuse when presented with the facts, such as ?That?s not a Chinese restaurant; it is a Chinese-American restaurant.? Only a handful of philosophers would admit they were wrong; ALL people believe that they MUST BE RIGHT: it is ?Human, All Too Human.? And it is an instinct that can be used to manipulate people for all kinds of ends, good and bad. [And so is the need to have an object for our love.]
Philosophy is wonderful: it is the reasoned contemplation of thought. But that says nothing about its practical use; we can come to all kinds of reasonable conclusions about our thoughts and what they ought to be, and how best to behave, but this is almost never the process that anyone uses to guide their behaviour. But we don't despair; for us, there is great comfort and joy and stimulation in our work -- that is reward enough.

看来萨维纳和诺伊曼在同一页上。如果有两个，就可能有四个，以此类推。革命是戏剧性的，但进化不那么暴力。而且，它会带来更大的稳定性。暴君永远不会得到这些，因为他们不会超越自己悲惨的一生去思考。对不起。哲学折磨我们的方式之多，我们无法轻易察觉。正如我们所知，它影响着生活的所有其他方面。令人震惊的是，我们中有更多的人没有意识到它的影响——但生活是忙碌的，令人困惑的——还有分心的事情。

The problem is that we set the standard of right versus wrong as one of which view is closer to a certainty than the other. The farthest from the certain is deemed the wrongest, or just simply wrong.
Since no-one can be sure of certainty, it's in the end a guessing game as to who or what is the less certain, and therefor, by the either/or dichotomy, the wrongest. And yes, it comes down to that, that all sides are likely to be wrong, and thus wrong will need to be defined as the wrongest.
这并不能告诉我们，我们是否能从一场决定谁或什么是最正确的比赛中获益最多。重新定义错误从最错误到越来越不正确。
那么，在这个分析中，我错的可能性比错的可能性大吗?

我想起了艾德同志在15分钟哲学博客上的评论。同志说:话是乱的。我同意。在任何特定的问题或问题上，很难决定谁对谁错，所以我们有一个司法系统和法院来在重要的法律问题上做出这样的决定。以及为那些认为法院犯错的人提供上诉途径。来自上诉法院的判决是否比之前的判决更正确?也许是这样，也许不是。有人会为此感到高兴;有人不会。
I have a small beef concerning that ever-present instrument we call consensus. It is an imperfect means of arriving at an outcome that opponents can live with. I characterize it as imperfect because it is NEITHER totally right nor totally wrong and may well have sacrificed positives on both sides of an argument. But barring the more one-sided outcome of arbitration or adjudication, it is the best that we've got.
I am drawn back to the last part of Heisenberg's first comment on this post. What was said there essentially is that we have these huge egos and we get a sense of accomplishment from winning, whether the win is fair or foul. Rights and wrongs are only subjective to the detached observer---seems to me.

Our comments on this post have taken us from philosophy through sociology, anthropology and psychology. Isn't it fascinating how all of these homo sapient creations tie into, support and augment one another? And, why not? We are the creators of our world. The increasing complexity and movement towards order in the universe, described by the new mavericks* of science and philosophy, would have absolutely no meaning, if we could not recognize what went on before. Indeed, no meaning if we were not here to make the identification.
如果“硬科学家”愿意的话，他们可能会嗤之以鼻。事实是，他们和他们的可证明的观念对灭绝的免疫程度并不比其他人高。我又开始读了。已经有一段时间了，但车库今年已经很好了，现在我必须继续接受教育。祝大家圣诞快乐，祝大家晚安。
(*see Morning Buzz blog---you can get there through the 15 minute philosopher blog's Favorite Places)

只是对“意见分歧和思想力量”帖子所产生的话语的随机评论。这些都引发了大量的评论、想法和交流。各章节?你的博客越来越好了，你不觉得吗?

Funny example the one you present about Lima beans. Actually, Lima beans are always a topic of discusion in Peru (where they originate from).
Intelligent people will always disagree. Like anybody else, the clue of humankind survival is having diversity of everything.

Great post very thought provoking and opinionated.