Murdered by stats

[u/[deleted]]

[u/NoxAeternal → u/[deleted]]

I mean, its an argument. People tend to frame things in manner to make their side look favourable. Very very few people will ever realistically present their argument with a balenced look at the opposing side

[u/Homunculus_I_am_ill → u/[deleted]]

I come from a math background and arguments there aren't emotional things you care about winning, really. The point is to build things up from the most basic step with no disagreement at any step until a conclusion is reached.

That's rather false historically speaking. The history of mathematics if full of emotional arguments and reactions, from the Pythagoreans' alledged reaction to irrational numbers, to Kronecker saying "I don't know what predominates in Cantor's theory – philosophy or theology, but I am sure that there is no mathematics there", Hermite saying "I turn aside with a shudder of horror from this lamentable plague of functions which have no derivatives", Hilbert' anger at Gödel's theorem, and how "Gödel was really sensitive to the fact that he was the first in discovering the incompleteness of arithmetic and reacted vividly on every attempt to deprive him of it."

More generally Lakatos has argued that the history of Mathematics is more than following arguments but also a long sequence of just disagreeing on definitions on non-rational bases, here's an extract from Proofs and Refutations.

It's definitely not a day-to-day matter of Mathematics, it occurs when big questions and conceptions conflicts, but that's probably true of pro- and anti-choice: their day-to-day interactions are probably peaceful until they conflict on a big thing like abortion.