Do you continue to investigate an issue if you disagree with the premise from the start?

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Someone presents an issue to you. They explain it in detail. At the end of their explanation, you conclude that you disagree with the premise of the issue that was explained to you. What do you do? Do you continue to investigate the issue, or do you reject the issue altogether on account of you disagreeing with its premise?

 

[tango]

A lot would depend on the issue, whether it affected me, whether it piqued my interest etc.

It would also depend on the person presenting it. An issue that didn't affect me but was presented by someone who I knew researched things properly might still be something I'd consider in more detail. An issue that didn't affect me presented by someone I knew was sloppy would probably get ignored.

The simple reality is that I don't have time to investigate every idea put to me so I have to figure out which ones are worth investigating.

 

[Frankj]

If I didn't agree with the premise of an argument but wanted to pursue it anyway I think I'd investigate the premise first.

Any argument can be correct in relation to its premise, but a false premise makes that 'correct' false as well in most cases.

 

[Lamb]

Someone presents an issue to you. They explain it in detail. At the end of their explanation, you conclude that you disagree with the premise of the issue that was explained to you. What do you do? Do you continue to investigate the issue, or do you reject the issue altogether on account of you disagreeing with its premise?

It depends on if some of my trusted friends keep bringing it up or if it's constantly on the news. Sometimes it's worth reading more into things so that you can understand their position, even if you don't agree with it.