__________________________________________________________________Artikel ini ditulis oleh anonymous. Kepada mana-mana pembaca yang mahu meletakkan artikel yang sebolehnya berilmiah dan selari dengan genre blog ini yang berteraskan sains kehidupan dan aplikasinya, boleh emelkan ke email@example.com (iaitu saya sendiri).
I’m a fan of TehTarikGelasBesar.
Nami, the writer, is very much against the so-called serbanistas.
I’m also an avid reader of terfaktab.blogspot.com, reason that being a foreveralone at 30 years age, you will be quite prone to read about perspective on love and relationship since you have none. Haha.
There’s few incidents of arguments in the terfaktab comments section, usually it concerns of religion. And if it so happens, I saw that Mr. Nami will have a go on the so-called “serbanistas” commenters.
So on the article of SarkaValentine written by Datin Bent Pencil during Valentine day, there’s one Mr. Zaidi commenting that
V-day values should not be promoted. Nami then gave comments to Zaidi that there are more things religion should care about than V-day, and Zaidi sought to disprove the claim.
Now, let us try to look at this case in a mathematical approach.
So, Nami reads books, plus with his experience and background, he had ideas of knowledge of how he perceive Valentine Day. Now, we will group all ideas of his in a Mathematical set called N.
Zaidi, on the other hand, also reads books, plus with his experience and background, he also had ideas of knowledge of how he grasp Valentine Day. Now, we will group all ideas of his in a Mathematical set called Z.
Now, since both of them knows about the existence of V-day, we shall say that these sets intersects at each other. The area of intersection is the knowledge that V-day exists.
However, Zaidi believe that V-day is not good, whence Nami thinks it’s ok. We shall note that knowledge of Vday is bad as
–Vday and knowledge of Vday is ok as +Vday.
Now, here’s the paradox.
If Zaidi sought to disprove Nami by pure reasoning, he could not, as his knowledge set does not encompasses the overall of Nami’s knowledge set. Because to fully disprove Nami’s set, one has to fully encompass the knowledge set of Nami.
But if Zaidi’s knowledge set fully capture all the essence of Nami’s knowledge, then we could say that Set N = Set Z, because by then the knowledge of Set N and Set Z are known to each other. If the knowledge are made known to each other, then it can be said that the knowledge shall be agreeable to each other.
Philosophically speaking, this is a paradox. If Z sought to disprove N, or so to state Z≠N, it cannot be done as N set of knowledge could not fully encompass Z. (you need to know the WHOLE reason to disprove it, but if you know the WHOLE reason, then the knowledge of knowing the whole thing would make it agreeable to each other).
Now, the other way to disprove, is by one party saying that his set of knowledge is bigger than the other party’s set of knowledge.
This means, as per this example, that Nami fully understands Zaidi’s point of view, (N set fully encompasses Z set), but there are other knowledge which Zaidi does not know of, thus implying that Zaidi’s argument is incomplete due to his not knowing of other knowledge in Nami’s set.
Henceforth, in arguments, it can usually be seen that in order to successfully disprove, one will claim that his knowledge is “more” than the other party.
However there are disadvantages for this.
1. By merely claiming that one’s knowledge is “more” , it does not progress the knowledge of one having the advantage, (you did not learn new thing, only state what u know), and
2. it would also lead to the “lesser” one to be defensive.
Finally it can be deduced that, in any arguments, if the pattern is seen with each party disproving each other, then it can be said that the argument itself is not beneficial.
A good argument should not seek to disprove, but to let know each other ideas, so that the whole reasoning can be fully encompassed and understandable for each party, with each party having its own freedom to conclude his/her opinion. The argument will then serve to progress each party’s knowledge.
I ask for forgiveness from all party mentioned here. Thanks.