Embracing Understanding: The Art of Logical Charity in Conversations

The principle of charity asks us to view others as intelligent beings. It's tempting to highlight errors in someone's beliefs to discredit them. Yet, this approach can lead to misunderstandings and missed opportunities for rich dialogue. Imagine Ash argues that our capability to land on Mars signals that we could redirect our scientific focus to solve major issues like world hunger, rather than enhancing cell phone technology. If I simply dismiss Ash's point by pointing out the factual inaccuracy - we haven't landed on Mars - it's an uncharitable response. Ash probably knows it was the Moon, not Mars, and their error was more of a science fiction Freudian slip. The principle of charity would lead us to gently correct this slip-up and engage more deeply with Ash's underlying argument.

Alongside this, there's the idea I call the Principle of Logical Charity. It challenges us to see others as coherent thinkers. We all deal with a wealth of beliefs and information, trying to make sense of a complex world. This principle is about assuming people are doing their best to express coherent thoughts. Take, for example, the seeming contradictions in Christianity's monotheistic belief system, distinguishing between Jesus and the Holy Spirit, both considered God. Labeling this as incoherent misses the mark. The Principle of Logical Charity would have us find a coherent explanation, such as the concept of 'God being multiply realisable'. This approach doesn't necessarily confirm all aspects of Christian beliefs, but it allows us to understand certain parts coherently. Overlooking this principle can lead to 'logical injustice', where we fail to appreciate the potential coherence in others' views.