Mom Thinks I'm Arguing with her when I'm trying to explain

[DaveC426913]

See posts #12 and #13.

Dagnabit! I knew I remembered seeing that quote recently!

Gozaru: I take it all back - your mom's cheese is slipping off her cracker.

 

[Tobias Funke]

Dagnabit! I knew I remembered seeing that quote recently!

Every single time you see a "Twain quote", think of this one:

I never said that.
-Mark Twain.

It seems to apply here.

 

[Silicon Waffle]

I get straight A's. Almost anything. I try to explain to her why I'm right about something and she thinks I'm arguing. She says, "You want to be right all the time" and then I'll say something like
"I'm just trying to explain" and she'll keep saying I want to be right all the time. Anytime I try to explain to her that I'm right about something(even though I know I might not be) she'll think I'm arguing with her

You come here to complain how bad you feel about your relative's decisions, but you seemingly don't want to learn or understand how bad s/he may be feeling each time you "win" your "dialogue" against him/her. There are things we can't change but it won't stop our little sparks of hope to change them.
Considering the importance of what needs and doesn't need to be explained is more necessary.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

There isn't enough information to explain anything, we need more context to know what the issue is.

Is she religious, are you arguing about science / reality? Someones superstitions tend not to be flexible, regardless of evidence or even the most well put arguments. If you try to explain evolution or the big bang to a creationist, they will always argue with you.

Did she have a bitter divorce with your father? You may remind her of him, or may subconsciously take frustrations out on you.

Is she extremely knowledgeable or ignorant in the field you are arguing about? You may be arguing the same point from different perspectives. I've had arguments over procedural vs OOP code and ended up realizing that we were both describing modulation with slightly different details.

Is she arrogant? Some people would rather continue to argue a wrong point than admit that they are wrong, this tends to increase with age. Sarah Palin was once told by Fox News that she was wrong that Paul Revere rang bells to scare the British, instead of admitting she was wrong she made up a story on live TV to try and make herself right.

Does she have stake in what you are arguing? If you're right will it negatively impact her? Cigarettes don't cause cancer... according to cigarette manufactures.

Are you significantly more intelligent/educated than her? Grades don't matter, I mean real analytical and problem solving abilities? Some people get frustrated with people who are either way more or less intelligent, we think differently so a logical argument to you might not be logical to someone with less intelligence, some people are threatened by those who are more logical and argue just to argue, knowing they are outmatched.

That might not go away, you might have to just learn to present your arguments in a different way. You may explain in a universal way when you have to talk to different people in different ways.

 

[rootone]

If it's just an opinion about something it often works out best to 'agree to disagree'.
There's nothing wrong with people having different opinions and it doesn't have to turn into a bitter feud about 'who is right'.
If the dispute is over actual facts then it's really down who has the evidence to support their claim.
In that situation, if one of the disagreeing parties has irrefutable evidence and the other doesn't, that should be enough to resolve the issue without an argument.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

Remember also that grades may not necessarily mean anything. For example, you're on a physics forum, you know that if you got straight As in physics from grade 1 to grade 8, everything you know about physics is... WRONG. Schools teach everything from the theory of gravity to the structure of an atom completely, 100%, dead wrong. Gravity does not pull matter towards other matter, that's a byproduct, electrons do not float around the nucleus like a planet around a star, it's just easier to teach it that way.

 

[micromass]

Remember also that grades may not necessarily mean anything. For example, you're on a physics forum, you know that if you got straight As in physics from grade 1 to grade 8, everything you know about physics is... WRONG. Schools teach everything from the theory of gravity to the structure of an atom completely, 100%, dead wrong. Gravity does not pull matter towards other matter, that's a byproduct, electrons do not float around the nucleus like a planet around a star, it's just easier to teach it that way.

Wrong is relative. As long as you know the limitations of the theory, I wouldn't say any of the examples you listed is wrong. A theory is supposed to be an approximation of reality, and none of our theories are perfect in that regard. There are always flaws, so in that way all of our theories are wrong. On the other hand, most classical theories are taught today for good reaon: because people still work with it. Nobody is going to apply to GR to build a house. There are theories that fit that framework equally well. So as long as you are aware of the limitations, then saying that gravity pulls matters towards other matter is not 100% dead wrong.

 

[phinds]

We're talking to ourselves folks. The OP posted last Sat, answered one question shortly thereafter, and hasn't been back to the board since.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

Wrong is relative. As long as you know the limitations of the theory, I wouldn't say any of the examples you listed is wrong. A theory is supposed to be an approximation of reality, and none of our theories are perfect in that regard. There are always flaws, so in that way all of our theories are wrong. On the other hand, most classical theories are taught today for good reaon: because people still work with it. Nobody is going to apply to GR to build a house. There are theories that fit that framework equally well. So as long as you are aware of the limitations, then saying that gravity pulls matters towards other matter is not 100% dead wrong.

That's true for things that can be explained mathematically, what about things that aren't?

Schools in some parts of the country teach (I'm not sure if they still do) that the Earth was made 6000 years ago, other schools teach that the Earth was made 4.4 billion years ago. The first group are taught that it was created as it is now by magic. This assumes that magic is real. The second group are taught that it just formed and old things were made the way they are by natural processes. This assumes that the natural laws have remained constant. Neither can be proven right or wrong, which one you think is more logical depends on how you were raised, and they are completely incompatible with each other.

 

[micromass]

Neither can be proven right or wrong

That's what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is a statement about the world that can be proven wrong, but that actually has a lot of evidence.
For example, saying that the Earth is 6000 years old is not a scientific theory, because it doesn't agree with the facts. Saying that the Earth is billions of years old is a scientific theory: it can be proven wrong, but there are a lot of things in its favor.
Saying that magic created the Earth is not a scientific theory since it cannot be proven wrong ever. That doesn't inherently mean that it's incorrect, it's just not something that science deals with.

Inherent to a scientific theory are its limitations. The Newtonion theory has a lot of evidence, but also has limitations. The theory is not valid beyond those limitations, but that doesn't make it wrong, it just makes it inapplicable. A lot of science investigates the exact nature of the limitations.

Note that a scientific theory can only ever be proven wrong, it can never be proven to be correct. The best we can do is to say that it agrees with all the evidence. In the same way, a person in court can never be proven innocent, but he can be proven guilty.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

I'd be willing to bet if you explained that to the OP's mother, she'd argue with you. I don't give any validity to pseudoscience or religion, but I was educated in science. Saying that there exists limitations to a theory to someone who doesn't want to believe the theory will point out the limitations and make the jump to the idea that it's wrong. Here is a good example of what I'm talking about:

Hypothesis: Specific vaccines can predisposition a child to autism
Papers supporting the hypothesis: 1
Papers rejecting the hypothesis: 99
Peer review of the 1 paper supporting it: sample size was too small, not statistically significant.
Headline in the newspaper: VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM SAYS SCIENTISTS

Laymen understand no difference between hypothesis, theory, and scientific theory.

 

[rootone]

Note that a scientific theory can only ever be proven wrong, it can never be proven to be correct. The best we can do is to say that it agrees with all the evidence. In the same way, a person in court can never be proven innocent, but he can be proven guilty.

Hmm, I'm not so sure it's as absolute as that.
Let's say there is a dispute over who is the biological father of a child.
In most cases it should be very easy with modern technology to discover absolutely what the truth is with a zero error margin..

 

[newjerseyrunner]

Hmm, I'm not so sure it's as absolute as that.
Let's say there is a dispute over who is the biological father of a child.
In most cases it should be very easy with modern technology to discover absolutely what the truth is.

Unless you give the father an identical twin and a mother who slept with both. :P

Sorry, just had to point out that even things that seem air tight might have variables we'll miss if we don't really think about it hard.

 

[micromass]

Hmm, I'm not so sure it's as absolute as that.
Let's say there is a dispute over who is the biological father of a child.
In most cases it should be very easy with modern technology to discover absolutely what the truth is with a zero error margin..

First of all, it's a philosophical issue, if you are content with 99.999% certainty then that's fine, but you'll never get 100% certainty. DNA tests don't give 100% certainty.

 

[fireflies]

Here's the key to getting along with women. Recite these words:

You're right.
I'm wrong.
I'm Sorry.
How can I make it up to you?
Dinner?The last line is flexible. (The others are not!) Chocolate? Wine? Flowers?

That doesn't work all the time. I still remember one day my mom was yelling at me on something (honestly I didn't remember what topic was that), then I just said, ya, my mistake- I'm sorry. She got more furious.

though I really don't know if I really sounded that sarcastic :D

 

[fireflies]

But if you really want to get out of this- act as the situation says

 

[newjerseyrunner]

That doesn't work all the time. I still remember one day my mom was yelling at me on something (honestly I didn't remember what topic was that), then I just said, ya, my mistake- I'm sorry. She got more furious.

though I really don't know if I really sounded that sarcastic :D

Some people are also just plain crazy. Get good grades so that you can go to a good college and move away, that's what I did.