It is not possible for new information to contradict classical logic for the very notions of information and contradiction depend upon classical logic.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - babyeatsdingo
Great. But how do people manage to have differing ideas to begin with? I can't assume they're just dense and incapable of reasoning out the "right" answer; some of the most brilliant people I know disagree on some very basic things.
Consider the O.J. Simpson trial. Those jurors brought some non-rational baggage with them. Emotion, presupposition, prejudice, bias, agenda, policy, moral and aesthetic value unfortunately play too large role in our determinations of fact at times. Our failed attempts to find the truth in a reasonable, objective manner, without passion or prejudice, does not mean that there is no truth to find or that we can't know with confidence what the truth is.
Anyway, smart people differ on the question of God, for example, not because there isn't a right answer. God either does or does not exist, be sure. They differ at times due to both rational and non-rational factors. This is why it is better to be honest than intelligent when you approach a question of great existential import like the question of God.
If you are asking about the what makes disagreement intelligible, then I've answered you. If you are asking for the psychological, cultural, sociological and anthropological factors that motivate disagreement between people as we experience them then I fear I've failed you thus far.
Classical logic is a necessary precondition for the possibility of disagreement, among countless other things we take for granted. If, for example, classical logic is not valid then you cannot say you and your friend exist in the first place, much less can you say you are talking to each other about the same subject matter. Which is to say that my answer to your question is that your question is unintelligible and literally meaningless unless classical logic is universally valid.
If I say "the historic orthodox Christian view is correct" then how with the resources of your worldview would you dispute this claim? If you deny classical logic then how do you say I am mistaken? Moreover, how could you deny classical logic anyway? What does it mean to deny classical logic on your view?
You've implied that you think Quine's view rebuts mine, which makes little sense if his view is "correct". Those that hold to my worldview or one like it seek truth as the highest epistemic virtue. What are you after if not truth?