Can we agree to disagree?

 There are several sayings that I do not like

1.  it is what it is
2.  it's not rocket science
3.  then we'll just have to agree to disagree

All of them are cop-outs

"It is what it is", just means it's not worth changing or it's not even worth thinking about.  People believe they are powerless - when they may not be.

"It's not rocket science" is a pretty much of an insult; as rocket science is actually pretty easy.  It's mostly math that's difficult, but there are well known formulas.  This phrase is is usually used in a situation where people are involved; and people are definitely not easy to deal with, as there are so many individual opinions and experiences.  The person saying this usually does not want to spend the time to understand the real reason.

But when I want to talk about today is the statement "we'll just have to agree to disagree".

 I was in a discussion with another person and the argument came to a stalemate and the person said "well we'll just have to agree to disagree".   I said I wouldn't accept that because there was no discussion of the facts in the case but it was rather an emotional argument on the other person's part.  Now of course in hindsight, what I should have asked; was, if this is your position, what would you accept that would change your mind.   If the person had said nothing will change my mind, then the argument was futile; because once a person will not give even 1% possibility that they are wrong, then it's not it's not worth to continue the discussion.  So rather the statement being we'll just have to agree to disagree,  I should have made the statement; that I can't have a discussion, if you won't at least be open to the possibility that you could be wrong.   

Neil deGrasse Tyson has a great quote when two scientists argue: "When two scientists argue, there is an implicit contract.  Either I'm right and your wrong, you're right and I am wrong, or we're both wrong."  (Now there is a 4th option - they might both be partially right - in case they really need to go out and have that beer.)

You might think, well did you offer the same deal in response?  Well let me ask you this question. If someone said the world is flat; would you even debate them? Would you even have a discussion if someone said that we never went to the Moon,  that NASA faked everything?  Would you even continue the conversation?   

Being aware of the current situation,  if someone said, that they had a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you could have a discussion once both plans were laid out.  Since nothing that has been tried before this worked. then other possibilities are open to trail and it is not so much that we agree to disagree but in this case there may be multiple options. Further discussion needs to happen before the better of the options can become apparent.  

If you were to say that evolution is not the best scientific explanation for life on Earth,  without any other alternative reason, it would be very hard to have a discussion.   Now you can have discussions of philosophy on the meaning or non-meaning of life, on the necessity or non-necessity of religion,  or consider the value of a human being,  These are discussions that are of a level above facts, above science or above mathematics, and therefore again different opinions may be valid.   But when it comes to matters of economics, the law of science or of history,  we have to be very careful in staking out a claim that we cannot back up by facts.  

So if you find yourself talking to someone who says "we will just have to agree to disagree" maybe the proper response is "We need to continue this discussion, when we have more time to lay out our positions."  If you find yourself using that saying.......You need to go back and come up with a better argument or more evidence.  Of course the other person could be in a state of emotional denial. To be covered in another post.