27 Aug 03
Originally posted by royalchickenYou will be all right as long as you never debate non-rational people. That leaves you with about 3 to 4 percent of the population with whom you may debate. In other words, me think you assume too much. In real life, the platonic object is likely to be an axe. The winner is the one without the axe imbedded in forehead.
Mike, you are assuming that an argument is won when a sufficiently large group of people agree with the winner. I'm assuming that an argument is a Platonic object that is a "winning argument" when the "winner" has inferred his conclusions in such a way that they don't contradict things that he knows. You are speaking of audience-dependent rhetor ...[text shortened]... em to undercut empirical science to some degree.
What about the evolution question I asked?
If you follow the debates between Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne concerning information exchange out of a black hole you will realize that even with the most high-minded participants and subjects, rationality fails at some point. It always becomes "me vs. you". In their case it is extremely humane and gentle. But they are exceptional in all respects. You won't get that from the general populace.
Determining simplicity can also be done by ridicule and humor. It has no meaning to non-logical debaters.
In your world, Jerry never wins. Just be aware that in jerry's world he wins them all. And words like "dialectical" and "rhetorical" are grist for the mill. Do you really think that his crowds know what either mean? Or if they do, do you think they care? If you use those terms in front of his crowd you are dead meat. Jerry Spence said it best... "Give me a guy in a silk suit before a jury in Wyoming and i'll win every time."
By the way, I agree with everything you are saying and your points are valid. I'm just pointing out that your and my opinions are pretty much irrelevent to 95% of the world.
The saddest part to this all is that you are right. My claims do undercut empirical science entirely. Emperical science is a valid method for gaining knowledge , but vastly unaccepted. If it were not for the benefits, ie, running water, auto's , tv, radio, phones... etc. I'm afraid scientists would fair about the same as they did in the inquistions.
27 Aug 03
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYet another great post. I'm afriad you are right. I know that my age group by and large thinks with the mechanism I have dubbed "The Metaphysic of Lip Gloss". I am only just beginning to understand it, and it makes me want to crawl into a hovel and write some kind of creepy (but rational to the last comma 😞) manifesto. Perhaps I should recognize in my everyday actions, and not just my mind (from discussions like this for example) that "argument" is rarely the way to win.
You will be all right as long as you never debate non-rational people. That leaves you with about 3 to 4 percent of the population with whom you may debate. In other words, me think you assume too much. In real life, the platonic objec ...[text shortened]... ientists would fair about the same as they did in the inquistions.
EDIT If people knew how frequently they do empirical science, perhaps they'd accept the methodology. When, as the fellow in my avatar says, one honks the horn to see if one's car battery is dead, one is experimentally testing a hypothesis.
Kip Thorne is Large Beard Dude, right?
27 Aug 03
Originally posted by royalchickenI think you will find that about 3 to 4 percent of the people who "poked the seed into the ground" got a relationship equation drawn in their mind. Of those, I dare say only one in ten thousand realized the consequences for "future generations" of his/her decendants. The rest do it because they are told to do it. This works pretty good. "Fads" are univerally beneficial until proven harmful. No thought involved though. "You Poke Holes in Body. Um... Me poke holes in Body. Must be Reason. Not Know. Who Care. Safer to have Holes, like You!" "Tatoo. Ugg. You get um, me get um. One Good, Three better."
Really? There is no logical process involved in noticing that seeds don't grow too well when just thrown on the dirt, and then poking a hole with a sharp stick, by way of planting?
I suppose you know more about the brain than I, but aren't 'intuitions' just 'lines of reasoning' conducted at high speed and with no verification process?
You ...[text shortened]... that happened to me after learning how to read.
Excellent pun sir! We've hijacked another!
😛 the only thing I know for sure about the brain is that it is the mechanism for mind. And what I read in Will Rogers Columns.😞 I am like a parrot repeating what I have read in the past that seems to make more sense than what I knew before i read that... A sticky piece of candy picking up crumbs along the way, if you will.
27 Aug 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYes, I think you are right, and packing some excellent imagery as well (I can just picture a partially sucked lollipop rolling mournfully down a road while bits of the cast off refuse of humanity collect on it). Furthermore, I can probably count of the fingers of one hand (and I do not suffer from polydactylism) the number of people who conceived of the "seed drilling" thing, and one of the more modern ones has a kickass band named after him..........Jethro Tull.
I think you will find that about 3 to 4 percent of the people who "poked the seed into the ground" got a relationship equation drawn in their mind. Of those, I dare say only one in ten thousand realized the consequences for "future generations" of his/her decendants. The rest do it because they are told to do it. This works pretty good. "Fads" are ...[text shortened]... knew before i read that... A sticky piece of candy picking up crumbs along the way, if you will.
Fads....education....human mental tradition. Rationality is a particularly compex fad that leaves a lot of room for bending and manipulation by its practitioners.
27 Aug 03
Originally posted by royalchickenRC... You have given me a new description for contemporay politics.
Yet another great post. I'm afriad you are right. I know that my age group by and large thinks with the mechanism I have dubbed "The Metaphysic of Lip Gloss". I am only just beginning to understand it, and it makes me want to crawl into a hovel and write some kind of creepy (but rational to the last comma 😞) manifesto. Perhaps I should recognize ...[text shortened]... is dead, one is experimentally testing a hypothesis.
Kip Thorne is Large Beard Dude, right?
"The Metaphysic of Lip Gloss" fits almost perfectly what I have struggled to say about it for years. There could grow a list of addendums, "The Three Second Pout", the "One Minute Primer"... etc... Thanks!
In those rare and wonderful moments when you are surrounded by like minds, argument can be wonderful. Those moments are rare beyond belief.
How many people would embrace "the empirical method" when they realized that 100 in a 50 zone + 90 degree turn perfectly illustrates vector addition? And proves all three of Newtons and especially f = ma.
Kip Thorne is a Cal Tech guy. Bearded mostly, yea.
27 Aug 03
Originally posted by misslead
I don't think it is an art.
If you think something and you don't care what others think about you,
Lyn
Well, you could call it an ability instead of an art.
Unfortunately there are people who do not care what others think about them, but what's worse, there are people who don't care about other people's feelings. They don't seem to think about the consequenses their statements and words may inflict on people ....... thoughtless people.
27 Aug 03
It is true that few things can be usefully argued using nothing but logic. However, in most areas I should think it is possible to construct an argument that has the following:
A logical structure, consisting of axioms (which may be unstated), intermediate steps deductions and conclusions. The deductions will usually not be water-tight, but the idea is that by having intermediate steps, each small deduction can stand or fall by its perceived merits.
Evidence to back up the argument, which could vary from quotes and anecdotes to statistics and scientific measurements.
Presentational and rhetorical techniques. These can be seen negatively as 'spin', and often dirty tricks are used. However, some of these techniques are undoubtedly good things, such as using easy-to-understand words and sentences and emphasising the critical parts of the argument.
However, the quality of such an argument is highly subjective. I suspect, for example, that royalchicken would look more favourably on scientific measurements than on anecdotes about friends and relatives, but for many people the opposite is true. Similarly, correlation may be seen as clear evidence of causation by some, but not at all by others.
As I see it, it does make sense to talk about an argument being rational, or emotive, or anywhere in between, though rational is not the same as logical. Generally a more rational argument will have as its presentational focus the logical structure, start with relatively few axioms, and will use a small amount of 'high-quality' evidence to make careful steps towards a fairly conservative conclusion. For examples, look in a scientific journal.
A more emotive argument will have large amounts of evidence of variable quality; it will make heavy use of rhetorical techniques such as repetition; it will make many unspoken assumptions that are deemed to be 'common sense' (such as 'punishment should be carried out for the benefit of the victim'😉 and it will come to a more sweeping conclusion, via a jumble of different routes which to some extent embody an emotion/emotions (eg an emotive argument for capital punishment will exploit the audience's hatred for murderers.) For examples of this, look in a website describing and attempting to 'prove' and elaborate conspiracy theory.
The effect of a scientific education is hopefully to help someone appreciate and tend towards the former type of argument, though the latter is usually far more persuasive for those unfamiliar with the scientific way of thinking. I like to see maths as sharpening the mind rather han narrowing it! 😀
Oh dear, this post isn't very well-argued. I might defend it better if someone quarrels with it.
27 Aug 03
2 edits
Originally posted by Acolyte
The effect of a scientific education is hopefully to help someone appreciate and tend towards the former type of argument, though the latter is usually far more persuasive for those unfamiliar with the scientific way of thinking. ...[text shortened]... ell-argued. I might defend it better if someone quarrels with it.[/b]
A logical structure, consisting of axioms (which may be unstated), intermediate steps deductions and conclusions. The deductions will usually not be water-tight, but the idea is that by having intermediate steps, each small deduction can stand or fall by its perceived merits.
Evidence to back up the argument, which could vary from quotes and anecdotes to statistics and scientific measurements.
More likely, the deductions will be watertight, but the axioms will be rather hazy and ill-defined. Other than that smallish quibblette, this is a perfect description of what I characteri(s/z)ing as the "dialectical" method.
Presentational and rhetorical techniques. These can be seen negatively as 'spin', and often dirty tricks are used. However, some of these techniques are undoubtedly good things, such as using easy-to-understand words and sentences and emphasising the critical parts of the argument.
The importance of these is inversely proportional to the well-definedness of the axioms, I think. An argument as a "platonic object" makes no use of these; an argument in the RHP forums does. And as long as the former techniques are used, a reasonable effort may cut through the rhetoric as necessary.
However, the quality of such an argument is highly subjective. I suspect, for example, that royalchicken would look more favourably on scientific measurements than on anecdotes about friends and relatives, but for many people the opposite is true. Similarly, correlation may be seen as clear evidence of causation by some, but not at all by others.
A few things. Yes, the quality is subjective because the "axioms" are usually derived from the evidence and are as such open to question. This is what I think Mike originally meant to point out. Clarification is good. Second, FWIW, you're spot on about what my preference would tend to be. I have a name for people who think otherwise...😛. Last, correlation does not indicate causation by itself. Noting a correlation does not imply a causal relationship unless other evidence is involved. Very good example though.
Generally a more rational argument will have as its presentational focus the logical structure, start with relatively few axioms, and will use a small amount of 'high-quality' evidence to make careful steps towards a fairly conservative conclusion. For examples, look in a scientific journal.
This is again quite a good explanation, the key being "relatively few axioms". The better defined the axioms, the fewer there need to be to infer a great deal from them. This connects with "have as its presentational focus the logical structure" in view of what I said earlier in this post about "the importance of these [rhetoric] is inversely proportional to the well-definedness of the axioms".
A more emotive argument will have large amounts of evidence of variable quality; it will make heavy use of rhetorical techniques such as repetition; it will make many unspoken assumptions that are deemed to be 'common sense' (such as 'punishment should be carried out for the benefit of the victim'😉 and it will come to a more sweeping conclusion, via a jumble of different routes which to some extent embody an emotion/emotions (eg an emotive argument for capital punishment will exploit the audience's hatred for murderers.) For examples of this, look in a website describing and attempting to 'prove' and elaborate conspiracy theory.
Most argument of this nature are not particularly meaningful, because the content tends to play a reduced role in the structure of the argument, and is less unified. This makes little sense as an argument is (I think) understood to be a tool for making judgements as to the 'truth' or 'value' of content. Then again, such arguments don't hold 'making sense' as a valuable argumentative device, and are thus not undercut by that attack.
As to your last points, I think that is what Mike was trying to explain to me.
Did I quarrel with it?
EDIT Colin, I admire your seemingly invincible level-headedness. Then agian, I don't know you well enough to have ever seen you upset, owing to the fact that your hypothetical level-headedness would certainly not provoke extreme demonstrated emotion over something said on a website...😛
27 Aug 03
Originally posted by AcolyteColin,
It is true that few things can be usefully argued using nothing but logic. However, in most areas I should think it is possible to construct an argument that has the following:
A logical structure, consisting of axioms (which may be unstated), intermediate steps deductions and conclusions. The deductions will usually not be water-tight, but the idea is ...[text shortened]... dear, this post isn't very well-argued. I might defend it better if someone quarrels with it.
I think I can agree with most of what you propose with the caveat that most people are not interested in Logic.
If I argue as follows, using your post as a guide...
Be it argued that "The human race has only finite time remaining to it before it slips into anarchy and chaos, unless it gets into space where resources are not the limit to growth that they will become as time passes on Earth"
Axioms might be either understood or stated. "Technology Levels depend upon Energy and economics", "Environmental concerns at some point prohibit the complete exploitation of earths resources". "Population levels and breeding patterns for humans suggest that arithmetical population growth will continue into the future until limits to growth occur to prevent said growth." "When hard limits are reached, there may or may not be means to work around the limit using new and/or better technology."....
Axiomatic conclusions might then be stated to support the argument. "At some point, be it a hundred, a thousand or ten thousand years, resources will expire and forced population control must become a reality." for example.
What has amazed me over my life time is how often this gets side tracked. I'll go better than that and say, that just from what I have said so far, the issue is irrelevant or not understandable to about 90 percent of the people who read it. These will dismiss it out of hand or argue against it based on emotion. Of the remaining 10 percent, who understand and care about the issue, half will agree with the argument and half will disagree. So the real debate begins at that point, involving a small sum of the total audience. The others are on the side, watching to see who has the best paint job. The best "Lip Gloss"
🙄 as RC so elloquently stated.
By the way... I really do think our race has about a hundred year window left to get off this mud ball and build a real civilization. At that point... if we don't... then it is George Orwell forever.
I am more cynical now than I was at 30. Then, I really thought that it was just a matter of time until the masses understood the scientific imperative. Now I think it is just a matter of time until the scientific imperative is used to create unspeakable evils upon the planet.
Math sharpens minds that understand it. The rest of us hope to gain something more tangible like rockets, computers, cell phones and satelites from those who know math. If you really want to see a dull expression on a human face, study mine at a math symposium. You might have to prod me with a stick (borrow Jethro Tull's) to see if i'm dead or alive.
Just to see if you meant it... "Your post made absolutely no sense!"😉 <grin>
27 Aug 03
2 edits
Originally posted by StarValleyWy'And you wise men don't know how it feeheheheheheheels to be thick....as a brick.'
Colin,
I think I can agree with most of what you propose with the caveat that most people are not interested in Logic.
If I argue as follows, using your post as a guide...
Be it argued that "The human race has only finite tim ...[text shortened]... f you meant it... "Your post made absolutely no sense!"😉 <grin>
~Mark, The Mike-Paraphrasing, Ian Anderson-Quoting Chicken
Just joking sir. I felt it necessary in view of your penultimate paragraph 😉
27 Aug 03
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchickenYou think the penultimate paragraph was Mikey-Like... You should see it from my point of view... or lack thereof. Very non-cartesian looking/acting graph to be sure! "When asked if there was a 'Point' to this, the glazed look returned and he responded... 'y is positive? or is it x?'"
Just joking sir. I felt it necessary in view of your penultimate paragraph 😉[/b]
27 Aug 03
2 edits
Originally posted by StarValleyWyHehe 😀...I think you should change your "Title" to "Incorrigible Punster...". Then make your profile "...do not incorrige".
You think the penultimate paragraph was Mikey-Like... You should see it from my point of view... or lack thereof. Very non-cartesian looking/acting graph to be sure! "When asked if there was a 'Point' to this, the glazed look returned and he responded... 'y is positive? or is it x?'"
27 Aug 03
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeAnother question: if a great many people take part, as happens right here at the RHP fora, is it called 'mass debating'?
The Art of Debating.
How should participants conduct themselves ?
Are there any "rules" of behaviour in order to debate "correctly" ?
How do we treat our fellow debaters ?
Should there be a "goal" in a debate ? ...[text shortened]... of "goal" ?
Five questions ...
Any thoughts ?