Your original issue with the article was that once you've "settled" an issue, there is no reason to argue about it. I pointed out that a number of people do not "settle" issues in the way that you describe, and that argument serves to update their information and beliefs constantly.

You stated that a mind "cannot be changed if it was never made." I disagree; one does not need to have an absolute belief in something to "change their mind." By definition, any update of beliefs is changing one's mind. My mind changes often, but usually by small increments. A key part of that is argumentation; I constantly seek out counterarguments to my own beliefs to see if new data or points of view will sway me. In the absence of that, I argue against myself, to see if I can find flaws in my logic and update accordingly.

By that logic argument, as described by the original article, is extremely useful for ensuring that one's beliefs accurately reflect reality.

To me, your position that an issue must be "settled" in one's mind (whatever that means, because I don't think you're perfectly clear on that) before you can be said to "change your mind" doesn't make sense.

Hmm I agree with some points and disagree with others.

Let's start with maths again, where we seem to be in agreement:

Assuming (as we both seem to be for now) that mathematics is pure expression of logic and reason: if you can prove something mathematically, you "know it", and if you can't prove it mathematically, you "don't know it".

With apologies to real philosophers, let's call known mathematical facts "truth".

It is possible for things to be real without us being able to express their truth accurately. This is what science does: it/we make observations and adjust our understanding based on experiments that make use of those observations.

These experiments can be complex - like firing electrons through sheets of metal to determine their physical structure - or they can me simple - like attempting and (for now) failing to walk through a wall. Based on the results of those experiments, we make technological progress, and potentially in the future, we will discover some technology, or a "more correct" fact about humans, or walls, that will enable us to develop a technology that allows us to walk through them.

However, in our current moment, we can scientifically demonstrate that it is better to leave the house by the front door than to attempt to walk through the wall.

Again with apologies to real philosophers, let's call these kind of empirical facts "knowledge".

With these definitions, knowledge and truth are not the same thing. We could look at truth as "perennial knowledge" or perhaps knowledge as "temporary truth until proven otherwise". Knowledge is falsifiable. Truth is not. Mathematics itself has a whole branch of study dedicated to measuring how likely knowledge is to be true: probability.

As our scientific knowledge, and technology improves, we're able to better see, measure and interpret the world, and the probability that our knowledge is truth gets higher. There are of course local maxima, and there are also step-changes with technological innovations and so on.

My argument is that we can "know" both "truth" and "knowledge", but knowledge is subject to change over time with appropriate evidence. Importantly, you can draw logical/mathematical conclusions from knowledge and call that truth. E.g: that people cannot walk through walls is knowledge, and therefore that leaving the house via the front door is a BETTER option than through the wall is a logical truth.

---- Breather time ----

Now we come to the third part of the spectrum:

> If you believe in the scientific method

Belief/religion/dogma/etc. These rotate the direction of reasoning and say: "We KNOW the reason, and evidence to the contrary is not able to change this belief". (See also: "motivated reasoning").

In effect, "belief" is a way of creating "truth" just like mathematics. And it suffers the same "problem" that "once proven, it cannot be unproven". The distinguishing difference between belief-as-truth and mathematics-as-proof is that people can't walk through walls.

So my question for you is: Is the best way to leave your house by walking through the wall?

- If you answer "Yes", you are exercising belief

- If you answer "No", you are exercising science

- If you answer "I don't know", then your day-to-day actions will decide for you. (Unless, like me, you never leave the house and the point is moot.)

> Does it matter? Even if I plainly see it produce a chocolate bunny, for what reason would I need to make up my mind on that? I fail to see the utility. "I don't know" remains a sufficient state going forward.

That's a different question. I'm not asking whether you have a reason to make up your mind on the question, just whether it's rational to think one or the other.

Couple more questions:

Is math an area where you can make up your mind?

Do you know whether you know the answer to the question I posed above? Which was:

>> "Everything I know, I know with the certainty of math, or not at all". Which of the two does this statement itself fall into?

I feel like we broadly agree and are just griping over the semantics of what “made up my mind” means.

> argumentation becomes boring once you are at the point where you feel there is nothing left that you can learn

Agreed, but here is the thing: there are plenty of topics on which I feel like “there is nothing left to learn,” but that doesn’t mean to me personally that there is nothing left, it just means I believe it is extremely unlikely to find anything new. Just by the definition, I wouldn’t know if there was anything new I haven’t learned yet, otherwise I would’ve went and learned it myself already. So that potentially new stuff would have to come from elsewhere.

However, I can definitely express my belief in the likelihood of discovering something new on the topic being extremely low, which is what i count as “i made up my mind” for myself personally.