Hoping you're willing to share.
I've noticed some people doing this on some topics. I'm really curious why you would do such a thing. I'm not going to state my position on it yet, because I'd kinda like to hear the reasons before I voice an opinion on it, just in case I'm wrong (again) about it
Hoping you're willing to share.
I don't follow? But I haven't been around much so this probably references something I missed...
I'm talking about people who say "You shouldn't question that", or "You shouldn't doubt that.". Obviously it comes up mostly in political and religious debates, but I'm curious what makes people think that some things should never be doubted.
Anyway, there's absolute doubt. Basically, everything in existance is doubtable. But even absolute doubt, "being" is normally put beyond doubt. This type of doubt and the whole "being" aspect everyone knows from Descartes. So its just not worth doubting if you're a being. So that is a case of putting something beyond doubt.
I think there's a reasonable doubt. Like doubting that gravity is going to behave differently tomorrow. Technically, there's no reason to doubt that, but it is done so decision can be made, things be built, etc. Sure, you can doubt it, but if you act on that doubt, its hard to get things accomplished. So another reason to doubt for another type of doubt.
There's more practical doubt. Like doubting that your spouse doesn't have your best interests in mind. I would imagine that if you doubted every move your spouse makes and constantly follow them/etc, you'll just ruin your relationship. Now, if your spouse gives you reason to doubt, then that's a different manner.
There's also ignoring doubt which is used in teamwork. For example, there's plenty of reason to doubt that your teammates will perform. But if you do not do your part (because of doubt) and make contigency plans, then the whole team could fail because of your doubt. This is illustrated in both the "stag hunt" dilemna and the "prisoner's dilemna". Again, if reasons are given for doubt, then its a different manner.
So there are some things which I would say aren't worth doubting or doubting can cause negative consequences. But obviously these are very abstract ideas that I can expand on if you wish.
To put in a practical example; many people have the basic understanding that time goes by one second at a time. Now if somebody were to come up to you and tell you "Yeah, so time doesn't always go by at the same rate." would you then doubt your previous knowledge of time passing, or would you tell said person to shut up and go away with his nonsense?
I can imagine that you don't spend all your days wondering if the sun will rise the following morning or if gravity will still work, but if someone gave you a reason to doubt that it'd come up, would you listen and think it over, or would you refuse to listen at all?
(As for the time example; it's actually true. Time doesn't always go by at the same speed; it depends on the speed at which you travel. It's minimal at Earth level speeds, but kinda important in astrophysics. I'm not very knowledgeable about it, but it's an interesting fact for the discussion here... would you have bothered to listen to the explanation, or discarded this true information because you believed that time travelled at one second per second without a doubt?)
But I think the whole issue goes back to a statement made about doubting soldiers. Now, one way to see it is the teamwork angle. For the team to proper work, the teammates need to trust that the others will do their job properly. Its like the "stag hunt" dilemna. To put it in terms relating to soldiers, let's say Soldier A needs to put himself in extreme danger, but knows he'll be covered by Soldier B. If Soldier B is not doing his job, Soldier A is 80% likely to die. If Soldier A does not risk his life, the mission fails. Now, if Soldier A starts to doubt Soldier B, the whole operation is in question.
Now, I don't necessarily agree that you must always trust your teammates, but in such situations, having no doubt helps the team heavily. So maybe for soldiers (and ex-soldiers) it is better to put their teammates into the "no doubt" region.
Also, I do agree that time is a factor. You shouldn't doubt when you have a deadline you really need to make, or something important running on it, unless it's absolutely neccesary. But you should still go back to doubting once the immediate pressure is off.
Those aren´t so much "beyond doubt" as they are "not right now, we'll doubt each other later".
The team thing is an example. They would probably work much more efficiently if they had absolute trust in each other, their equipment, intel, and such. Even if its not a matter of time, doubting the effectiveness of a piece of equipment or the reliability of intel could negatively effect the mission.
So I could see how in that situation, it'd be beneficial to place things beyond a doubt. Also, I'm not saying that no one should doubt any of it. The combat team members might not doubt certain things, but maybe equipment specialists can verify and handle the doubt on the equipment.
(But I do actually know much about military operations, so this is all speculation.)
The soldier issue isn't the only one. I've seen it come up many times before, on this forum and out of.
Also, I do agree that time is a factor. You shouldn't doubt when you have a deadline you really need to make, or something important running on it, unless it's absolutely neccesary. But you should still go back to doubting once the immediate pressure is off.
Those aren´t so much "beyond doubt" as they are "not right now, we'll doubt each other later".
Doubting your team mates after the mission can be just as harmful to any future missions as doubting them on the spot. Maybe you could use a different example for doubt where having doubt isn't going to be detrimental to the doubter's life.
Hm. Perhaps I should've explained better then
I'm talking about people who say "You shouldn't question that", or "You shouldn't doubt that.". Obviously it comes up mostly in political and religious debates, but I'm curious what makes people think that some things should never be doubted.
Ah. I thought that's what you meant, but doubted my own thought process. :P
I doubt everything, it's often hard to get a straight answer out of me.
I've only ever given 100% answers to a very few questions. Me getting married is one example. I wouldn't have done so if I wasn't 100% sure it would work.
But I work in tech support, and if I'm fixing things my language is very passive (relative to my coworkers). Such as "if we do this it should fix it." or "in the past I've seen this work". If I wasn't so good at resolving issues I'd probably not have a job just because I sound like I don't know what I'm doing.
I've seen too many things go wrong to give 100% answers to anything really.
But, on some occasions I will say that suppressing doubt is extremely useful. It doesn't matter if you have doubts, for the resolution of subject matter X we'll assume that Y is true and doesn't need to be questioned at this time.
(I don't mean to be a jerk, but its a pet peeve of mine when people use 100% and other percentages in such a way. This is more a discussion of percentages than your relationship.)
No offense, but marriage is a horrible example of something to have 100% confidence in, especially if you're skeptical by nature. There's way too many factors involved. It just seems... odd to say that its is impossible to imagine a way for a marriage to fail. And that's coming from someone who's extremely happily married.
(I don't mean to be a jerk, but its a pet peeve of mine when people use 100% and other percentages in such a way. This is more a discussion of percentages than your relationship.)
I agree but you can disregard my opinion seeing as how I have no first hand experience besides having to learn at the age of 3 what divorce is :/
Or it could save lives. If you feel that your superiror is taking unnecessary risks for people under his orders, you are within your right to act on that dought.
Probably not a good idea during a mission, but useful between missions.
I think we are applying doubt to 2 different things. You are doubting what should be done during the mission. Sure, you can always doubt what should be done between the missions and bring it up if there is an alternative.
I'm applying doubt to the example the Scypio gave with the soldiers:
But I think the whole issue goes back to a statement made about doubting soldiers. Now, one way to see it is the teamwork angle. For the team to proper work, the teammates need to trust that the others will do their job properly. Its like the "stag hunt" dilemna. To put it in terms relating to soldiers, let's say Soldier A needs to put himself in extreme danger, but knows he'll be covered by Soldier B. If Soldier B is not doing his job, Soldier A is 80% likely to die. If Soldier A does not risk his life, the mission fails. Now, if Soldier A starts to doubt Soldier B, the whole operation is in question.
Now, I don't necessarily agree that you must always trust your teammates, but in such situations, having no doubt helps the team heavily. So maybe for soldiers (and ex-soldiers) it is better to put their teammates into the "no doubt" region.
But what do you do when a fellow soldier didn't cover your back or you felt he didn't cover your back?Should you shrug the doubt off? What if you are right? You're going to your death because you refuse to doubt.
Lets take the grenade example. Lets say it was one of the US soldier who threw the grenade. Should his fellow soldier not doubt his judgement underfire?
That's after the fact... and with a reason. If you have a valid reason, that is one thing, if you don't then why would you doubt your fellow soldier?
As for the grenade...
That depends. We don't know all the facts yet. It could have been some bad intel. He ma have thought that she was somewhere else. It could have been moved by an enemy combatant. Besides, grenades don't rely on accuracy as much as a gun would for example. You toss the grenade in the general area. For all you know, there may have been an enemy combatant in the general area.
Not necessarely a jerk, maybe he just paniqued. Maybe he just like things to go bomb. But that example is beyond doubt.
Lets exclude paranoia and just focus on a soldier who doubts that a fellow soldier actual has his back. Maybe because the other soldier has a grudge against him or because he said your communist scum because you said you voted for Obama. What should you do?
Sorry, I edited my comment while you were responding.
Not necessarely a jerk, maybe he just paniqued. Maybe he just like things to go bomb. But that example is beyond doubt.
Lets exclude paranoia and just focus on a soldier who doubts that a fellow soldier actual has his back. Maybe because the other soldier has a grudge against him or because he said your communist scum because you said you voted for Obama. What should you do?
Sorry, I edited my comment while you were responding.
First, if there was a fellow soldier like that, I think he would have problems in the military. Soldiers aren't supposed to have political opinions while serving. It doesn't matter who the president is at the time. If we had a grudge we probably wouldn't be going on any missions together to begin with.
But what do you do when a fellow soldier didn't cover your back or you felt he didn't cover your back?Should you shrug the doubt off? What if you are right? You're going to your death because you refuse to doubt.
Lets take the grenade example. Lets say it was one of the US soldier who threw the grenade. Should his fellow soldier not doubt his judgement underfire?
That's after the fact... and with a reason. If you have a valid reason, that is one thing, if you don't then why would you doubt your fellow soldier?
As for the grenade...
That depends. We don't know all the facts yet. It could have been some bad intel. He ma have thought that she was somewhere else. It could have been moved by an enemy combatant. Besides, grenades don't rely on accuracy as much as a gun would for example. You toss the grenade in the general area. For all you know, there may have been an enemy combatant in the general area.
Well what if you have valid reasons to doubt, but less obvious then a granade tossing dude? Like having a grudge against you or he doesn't like your guts or you think a soldier likes to shoot at people more than defend his fellow soldiers.
Now you might say he is a soldier and his duty is to his fellow soliders. That is nice and all but human nature being what it is, can you really depend on someone doing what is right despite his feelings?
We can keep playing the "what if" game if you'd like. What if he was part robot and he could toss a grenade through a 6 inch hole 2000 meters away? What if he was programmed to protect all his fellow soldiers?
Who cares... you are giving me reasons why not to trust him. The reasons you give are a lot more clear cut than the original example. The original example just had two soldiers going in to combat, one covering the other. That isn't as clear cut as saying that one likes to shoot people rather than protect his fellow soldiers.
How about you try not giving specific reasons why this guy is a bad soldier and get back on topic?
No offense, but marriage is a horrible example of something to have 100% confidence in, especially if you're skeptical by nature. There's way too many factors involved. It just seems... odd to say that its is impossible to imagine a way for a marriage to fail. And that's coming from someone who's extremely happily married.
(I don't mean to be a jerk, but its a pet peeve of mine when people use 100% and other percentages in such a way. This is more a discussion of percentages than your relationship.)
No offense taken. Marriage is a horrible example of something to have 100% confidence in. That's why my specific example (OUR marriage) is a good one. For me, I have no doubt that my marriage will last until we die. I can imagine several ways it can fail, just there are none that could actually happen.
I have less confidence in anyone else's marriage, about 0-50%.
It's a pet peeve of mine when people use 100% as well. An extreme one. Almost a 9000% pet peeve. ;P My wife knows this and occasionally will say something like "13 million percent of all cats love catnip."
I'm just more sure of my marriage lasting than anything else. Literally. I don't fault you for doubting me. I'd doubt me too if I weren't me.
She's an atheist, I'm an apathiest, I don't believe in monogamy nor sanctity of marraige (or "sanctity" in general).
I do, however, honor my oaths. Contracts are what separate us from animals.
I respecfully disagree, I am on topic. The reason I invoked those examples is because you said that a soldier should never doubt the people who have his back. I disagree and gave examples of moments when a soldier is intitled to doubt the people who have his back.
Did I say that?
I challenge your accuracy.
Please quote me saying that.
I said that doubting the soldier backing you up, even between missions is not very helpful. I have never said that you should never doubt anything.
But I think the whole issue goes back to a statement made about doubting soldiers. Now, one way to see it is the teamwork angle. For the team to proper work, the teammates need to trust that the others will do their job properly. Its like the "stag hunt" dilemna. To put it in terms relating to soldiers, let's say Soldier A needs to put himself in extreme danger, but knows he'll be covered by Soldier B. If Soldier B is not doing his job, Soldier A is 80% likely to die. If Soldier A does not risk his life, the mission fails. Now, if Soldier A starts to doubt Soldier B, the whole operation is in question.
Or...
Since you were not there, in a loud, confusing, mess, where people are shooting and dieing, you shouldn't second guess the decisions of those in that situation. Awareness on the battlefield is rarely 100% and no plan survives contact with the enemy.
If some form of gross negligence can be found, I may change my opinion, but right now, I am not going to question the decision of the soldiers in the combat.
*R_H swats at the Left-wing agitators buzzing around his head*
Or...
Since you were not there, in a loud, confusing, mess, where people are shooting and dieing, you shouldn't second guess the decisions of those in that situation. Awareness on the battlefield is rarely 100% and no plan survives contact with the enemy.
If some form of gross negligence can be found, I may change my opinion, but right now, I am not going to question the decision of the soldiers in the combat.
*R_H swats at the Left-wing agitators buzzing around his head*
RH, you know I support the military. I stand up for the military. But when bad stuff happens the likes of which shouldn't happen I'm hard on the military, specifically because I support them. So when something happens that really should not have happened, I do second guess them. And so does the military, that's why there are investigations. I will not, however, sit back and *****, whine, and complain about how bad the military is. My point of view of such things is, "Something went wrong. Find out what it was and why. Do what can be done to make sure it doesn't happen again."
Or...
Since you were not there, in a loud, confusing, mess, where people are shooting and dieing, you shouldn't second guess the decisions of those in that situation. Awareness on the battlefield is rarely 100% and no plan survives contact with the enemy.
If some form of gross negligence can be found, I may change my opinion, but right now, I am not going to question the decision of the soldiers in the combat.
*R_H swats at the Left-wing agitators buzzing around his head*
RH, you know I support the military. I stand up for the military. But when bad stuff happens the likes of which shouldn't happen I'm hard on the military, specifically because I support them. So when something happens that really should not have happened, I do second guess them. And so does the military, that's why there are investigations. I will not, however, sit back and *****, whine, and complain about how bad the military is. My point of view of such things is, "Something went wrong. Find out what it was and why. Do what can be done to make sure it doesn't happen again."
That's fine.
All I'm saying is that, until evidence points otherwise, I will not second guess the decisions of those in the battle.
I'm not against an investigation, but I'm not going to condemn the soldiers or the military for it until evidence of fact points to gross mis-conduct.
I respecfully disagree, I am on topic. The reason I invoked those examples is because you said that a soldier should never doubt the people who have his back. I disagree and gave examples of moments when a soldier is intitled to doubt the people who have his back.
Did I say that?
I challenge your accuracy.
Please quote me saying that.
I said that doubting the soldier backing you up, even between missions is not very helpful. I have never said that you should never doubt anything.Doubting your team mates after the mission can be just as harmful to any future missions as doubting them on the spot. Maybe you could use a different example for doubt where having doubt isn't going to be detrimental to the doubter's life.
This sounds like making off-topic, but I will indulge in this unruly behavior.
The second quote is your original quote. It is true that you never used the word never, but your statement does not open the door to doubt either. I interpreted it has never.
In that case, the problem is you were completely misinterpreting the point of my post. I was asking for an example that were having doubt wasn't going to affect your survivability. You can still have doubt, but like I said, in this particular situation it is not very helpful. You can have all the doubt you want, but if you happen to be Soldier A, you may be more concerned with what he is doing... or not doing behind you. Is that going to help you out during the mission? I doubt it. having had no legit reason to not trust your team members, will doubting that they will do what they are supposed to do in future missions help you? I doubt it.
You can infer whatever you would like, but you are inferring incorrectly. I didn't use the word "never" for a reason. Others have mentioned (either in this thread or the america to the rescue thread) that saying the soldiers were at fault is not the same as defending the kidnappers. Would you agree that saying the soldier was at fault or partially at fault is not the same as defending the kidnappers?
Note, I haven't said don't have doubt, I've said having doubt in this situation isn't helpful. I realize English is your second language. Maybe you aren't understanding what I write (not trying to insult you). Inferring what isn't there... especially going to the extreme of inferring NEVER from what I said... does not help your argument.
I'm not even sure why you keep arguing with me...
You're arguing something I haven't said. Please don't make me take out the straw man picture.
I understood what you ment about having doubt during combat won't serve you. I also understand that if you do not have reason to doubt between combat, it will serve nothing. What I was propossing were examples where having doubt between combat might be a good thing. To me you were speaking in absolutes and absolutes than to be absolutely wrong. Miscommunication apparently.
But I would still like to see that straw man picture.
Well... That is the problem. I tend to say "may be," "can be, "might" in most of the things I post so that I won't be accused of stating absolutes.
Since you asked nicely...
First, if there was a fellow soldier like that, I think he would have problems in the military. Soldiers aren't supposed to have political opinions while serving. It doesn't matter who the president is at the time. If we had a grudge we probably wouldn't be going on any missions together to begin with.
I think you're confusing "having an opinion" and "letting an opinion get in the way of your job". Professionals can do the first and not trouble themselves with the second. Many do. Most soldiers do.
Quite frankly, if you can't learn to put your own feelings aside to get a job done, then you're going to have trouble in just about any line of work.
1) Beging 'right' is less important than some other factor.If an individuals loyalty to a group is seen as more important to them than the group having good reasons for the things it does, then doubting the group is detremental.
2) The thing to be doubted is irrelevant. Waisting time doubting or believing something that really has no effect on your life and that is not interesting is detremental. It wastes your time and mental energy on a boreing fruitless task.
Basically it boils down to 'sometimes doubting leads to worse results than blind faith or apathy'. When only harm comes fromdoubting, then better to not doubt that thing.
For instance: Jhon has sworn fealty to king George, and king George has gone to war with Jhon's neigbor and called upon Jhon to provide military support. Jhon may die in battle, his lands might be lost, his family might die. Or they might not. Jhon can focus on winning this war, or he can spend time doubting king George. If he decides to support George anyways, the time he spent doubting was wasted. If he decides not to support George, he may save his life but willalmost certaintly lose his land and title, and likely the love and respect of his family, and risks the future of his wife and children.
In this case, putting your lord beyond doubt makes good sense.
Thank you for understanding.
ORC_Chaos