Many people have noted that I like to argue. Some say that it's good that I have an opinion. Some say that it's annoying. Some say both. I say that if some one says something that is against what you believe, you are less of a person not to find out why they think differently or argue your point with them.
Some times it is inappropriate to argue. Some times a person's beliefs are really close or one does not have the appropriate domain knowledge to argue with them. However, it is hard for me not to argue against something that, up to this point in my life, my experience overwhelmingly proves my point of view correct over theirs.
In an attempt to counter my arguments, some people tell me that I must be wrong because I am not keeping an open mind and that I wont change my views to suit theirs without supporting evidence.
For example, by definition, momentum equals mass times velocity. Also, by definition, a photon has no mass and has momentum. There is no way that you can make that equation fit that definition of a photon, so one of those MUST be wrong. There is NO possible way to argue to the contrary. NONE! However, two people have argued to the contrary and say that I don't understand and that I must be wrong!
How can I be misunderstanding this? If mass = zero, then momentum must be zero. Maybe something times zero can be something other than zero. Maybe my entire understanding of algebra is incorrect. Maybe everything I have ever been taught and everyone I know that has been taught the same way, as I are wrong. Or maybe the one of the statements is wrong. Which is more likely?
What is more likely is that Newtonian physics falls apart when velocity approaches the speed of light. So if that is the case, teaching Newtonian physics is like teaching what is essentially not true. Don't get me wrong, the calculations involved in a superior method are most likely many times more complex and that the result is nearly the same as the Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics would obviously be more appropriate for computer games or similar simulations where exactness is not as important as speed. However, we should not be teaching (or in my case, I should not have been taught) something that has been known to be incorrect for many years!
As another example, the Amber alert inconveniences millions of people every time child abduction is reported. The statistics publish by the organization responsible for the amber alert state that since the alert was started, over 200 children have been saved! The alert started in 1996, so that means 40 saved children a year. I am pretty sure that more than 40 children are abducted every year, although you would never know that from their statistics. It doesn't say "200 of our 200 broadcasts have ended in success" or "90% have succeeded". Obviously a statement like that would be much more convincing of the success rate of the Amber alert. So the logical conclusion? The amber alert is so UN successful that they withhold vital statistics.
Again, don't get me wrong; I don't want children to die. But if the point is to save lives, then lets broadcast to millions every time any single person's life is threatened. If some one has a stroke, broadcast that a doctor is needed for immediate medical assistance! If some one is going to starve to death, send them food. And just to be fair, we need to broadcast to everyone, not just doctors or people with food. Since 99.99999 percent of the people the Amber alert reaches have no impact on the success of it, we need to make sure that we blanket broadcast so that we can get our success statistics just as low! If we give every person a fair chance at their own alerts, we will be forced to watch more alerts than we can possibly have time to watch. Obviously when you analyze the Amber alert, it's merits break down. Just so you know, I tried requesting statistics on their success rate, but the email address they have posted on their website for more information bounces back.
These two arguments are the big recipients of "I hate arguing with you" rebuttals. If you can refute my logic, please do. I don't want to sound stupid by stating things that are illogical or stupid. However, if you can't back up your claims, don't get mad at me. Arguing is a battle of endurance and logic. If you can't endure some one else's argument, then you lose. If some one else's logic breaks yours, you lose. If you say "I don't like arguing with you" then you are admitting you cannot endure and/or that your logic can be broken; you lose.
I don't want people to be angry with me or think I am annoying, but at the same time I do not want people thinking things that are clearly incorrect. If you have views that I think are incorrect and are not willing to accept that you may be wrong, can't argue your point, don't want to argue at all, or don't have the time, then don't say anything like "your wrong" when I state my opinion, say "okay" or "acknowledged". Then neither of us will be upset! If my views are wrong, prove it, and I will appreciate you making me look less stupid.