the futility of debate

[bellybelle]

I personally find it very difficult to get worked up in this forum, at least not to the point where I'm genuinely angry.

Should give some classess to select members of the forum. Especially those born with strict morals.

I think this is perhaps another area where online debate fails more than personal interaction. As much as the onus of offense doesn't rest entirely on the individual offering the comment, there is entirely too much emphasis on being purposefully abusive or inflammatory merely for to get a rise out of someone. That is unnecessary and only puts people on the defensive, which ends any real exchange. At that point, it becomes self-protection and shutting down.

If you desire to be antagonistic, you must be ready to accept the feedback as well. Most often, people want to be cruel without consequence, and as a result, remove themselves entirely from the reception by saying its someone else's fault and not express empathy for why someone might be offended. A good deal of sensitivity doesn't hurt anyone and actually works in the opposite way, in giving someone consideration as an equal and expressing that even if you don't agree, you are making an effort to see things through their perspective.

To keep the spirit of true debate alive, there has to be this appreciation for the process by which someone has achieved their viewpoint. There should be a level of respect given at least for that.

[ashley]

I personally find it very difficult to get worked up in this forum, at least not to the point where I'm genuinely angry.

Should give some classess to select members of the forum. Especially those born with strict morals.

I think this is perhaps another area where online debate fails more than personal interaction. As much as the onus of offense doesn't rest entirely on the individual offering the comment, there is entirely too much emphasis on being purposefully abusive or inflammatory merely for to get a rise out of someone. That is unnecessary and only puts people on the defensive, which ends any real exchange. At that point, it becomes self-protection and shutting down.

If you desire to be antagonistic, you must be ready to accept the feedback as well. Most often, people want to be cruel without consequence, and as a result, remove themselves entirely from the reception by saying its someone else's fault and not express empathy for why someone might be offended. A good deal of sensitivity doesn't hurt anyone and actually works in the opposite way, in giving someone consideration as an equal and expressing that even if you don't agree, you are making an effort to see things through their perspective.

To keep the spirit of true debate alive, there has to be this appreciation for the process by which someone has achieved their viewpoint. There should be a level of respect given at least for that.

I can take it as much as I can give it. However what I don't like is people who brown nose and who are fake. Lets go back to the cherryade thread for example. Everyone agreed, I had an opinion, I got flamed for it. Whats the point.

Parson makes an interesting discussion, a select few would argue back and/or ask questions - others wouldn't even bother entering the thread while others would flame. Blizzard asked a few questions, he was only young, got years ahead of him - got cussed off the forum. Too much gang banging and "elitism" going on in here for a proper debate to commence.

[bellybelle]

One finds it agregious and unpropitious that opportune expedient sesquipedalian glottological dialect is frequently habituated to convey superordinate insight

if an individual has spent a considerable amount of time dedicated to honing their vocabulary, certainly it can be appreciated for what it is instead of criticized for not being clothed in the vernacular...

whether homemade cheddar cheese pie or a Gruyere souffle, if its good, its still good, yeah?

"a rose by any other name would smell as sweet..."

[elbe]

often "long words" convey a particular message and when debating it is good to be as precise as you can. It is also important to use a varied vocabulary so as the listener/reader is more, for want of a longer and more precise word, entertained.

[elbe]

"a rose by any other name would smell as sweet..."

but if you are attempting to explain the smell of a rose and call it by another name, when the person you are explaining it to only knows it as a rose, then your explanation will, at best, be much more complicated

[bellybelle]

haha true, although the point of language is to convey a message- using long words for the sake of it limits the amount of people that understand it.
......wasn't saying it to anyone in particular...just seemed to me its the debating/argument threads that tend to have people put in all their best grammer and longest words as if that makes their points more valid

i definitely do that but for a less obvious reason. the higher i elevate my speech, the more i am personally removed from the subject. like...i purposefully get more clinical with my language because it sterilizes my emotion behind it. it becomes more of a chess match then...which, granted, i still suck at chess but...hehehe yeah.

when i start swearing, i'm affected too much. i definitely do get angry about some of the things said here. i totally admit to it. i'm emotional and human and tend to feel bad about how people are treated or picked on. some things said are so far from my experience that i get boiling mad. i have to pull back...

so i hide behind my language. i'm definitely guilty of that. but...its because i don't want to feel it as much as i do. i can't speak for others...but i own up to hiding when i can its not for self-inflation....its because if i allow myself to feel it fully, i won't be able to hear anything over my rage, frustration, fury. and maybe i would shoot myself in the foot instead of learning something. i so don't know everything. learning every day if i can. and its better than fruits and veggies to me

[slothrop]

I suppose if you debate but no-one changes their mind then there isn't much point...but on the whole people are open to hearing new ideas and then debate why they agree/disagree with them, usually someone will change their views a bit.

I think human ego can cloud the benefits of debate. From my own experience if I pick up something in a debate I'll probably keep arguing my previous point. Maybe because I dont want to be wrong or maybe just to confirm to myself that what I've been told is valid. The next time the subject is brought up I'll have that knowledge and use it.

yeah i feel you on this too.

though i believe strongly in face to face debating or face to face conversations... the anonymity of online debates turn it into a grueling cockfight. i think people should have to look someone else in the eye and that that will keep even a heated debate most on the level.

i hope it takes a longer amount of time to resort to name calling and cheap tactics when a point cannot be made in person than online.

To be honest, I find face to face conversations pretty useless for actually getting a constructive argument. It's too easy for someone to skate over a weakness in their argument or cite a source that they know noone's going to be able to challenge, and too hard for people to properly analyze what people are saying and think about how best to express your own point. It has to be immediate and all other concerns are secondary.

On the internet, if someone says something that I disagree with, I can go away, think about it, look a couple of things up in books, figure out precisely what my problem is and then decide how best to explain that, over the course of several days if I really want.

The fact that people tend to get aggressive - I don't know, I've been on forums that can get deep into a discussion - sometimes people get angry and start attacking each other instead of making points, but another advantage of a forum is that once everyone's shut up and calmed down (or been told to shut up and calm down by everyone else) you can actually go through what was said and pick up where the discussion was before it degenerated. Which you can't really do in real life - "so where had we got to, before you called me a god dammed baby-murdering commie?"

[elbe]

I find this spontaneity about face to face discussions thrilling though, have to think fast and dig deep into what you remember, if someone cites something and you do not know better you have to accept it is true, and find another way around it.

[slothrop]

I find this spontaneity about face to face discussions thrilling though, have to think fast and dig deep into what you remember, if someone cites something and you do not know better you have to accept it is true, and find another way around it.

But that makes it sound more like a mental boxing match and less like a way of getting at the truth. If I'm trying to work out a common understanding of something with someone, I'd rather drop the thrill and stick to having our arguments actually out there to be dissected at leisure and have their every point checked over.

[bellybelle]

I find this spontaneity about face to face discussions thrilling though, have to think fast and dig deep into what you remember, if someone cites something and you do not know better you have to accept it is true, and find another way around it.

yeah this. and, i know with me personally, people might think i sound one way based on what i look like that is entirely not the case. i joke around a lot, usually giggly and am usually laughing or smiling when i speak. when i type something onto a board, i can hear how i would say it because i know how i speak. people who have met me from the boards also can hear my voice (i write pretty much the way i speak but with a lot more swear/cuss words) in my words because they've heard me speak before and know how i usually say things and how i'd say them. but for people who don't know...they have no idea the kind of lilt there is to my voice. they have no idea how serious or not my wording is. and i think the message might get lost because of how someone might perceive my language based on what i look like and previous experiences they may have had with people who look like me.

if we were all in a big room, and could see and hear each other, i think a good deal of miscommunication would be cleared up by just hearing our inflections. but...that's lost too. people are responding to what they think people are saying instead of what they actually are. I am equally guilty of this.

[black lotus]

I find this spontaneity about face to face discussions thrilling though, have to think fast and dig deep into what you remember, if someone cites something and you do not know better you have to accept it is true, and find another way around it.

not necessarily.. that's why being specific and prefacing is really important. saying something like "i read this somewhere, but i don't recall where.." if that is the case, or "this was in a book by X" or whatever..

the bottom line: nobody really has any idea wtf is going on. and even if they feel like they have a grasp on "reality" and it works for them, it is constantly changing and evolving and eventually will become obsolete. belief systems = operating systems, soul is technology, etc.

what happens when the internet becomes sentient? are we all going to have a terminator 2 skynet freak out?

also, linking to technology and science and philosophy..

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/
principia cybernetica

[seckle]

belief systems = operating systems, soul is technology, etc.

belief systems have been questioned for hundreds of years, but fundamentally its accepted that knowledge must come from a set of justifications, and therefore your beliefs are defined by these justifications along with evidence and reasoning.

if you're willing to re-define for convenience sake what rational you have for following a set of beliefs, then you can't automatically conclude that what you believe in is knowledge.

it's like the "world is flat " example. it's flawed logic. a person that believes that the world is flat, doesn't know that the world is flat. in order for it to be knowledge someone must know it, and have evidence.

if you follow the Kuhnian take on science and call nearly anything a set of beliefs, then you cannot get upset when people refuse to listen to you along the way. its got nothing to do with being opened minded or closed minded. its the fundamental notion that deductive reasoning and analytical thought, lives in the same world as science, and one underscores the other.

[human?]

belief systems = operating systems, soul is technology, etc.

belief systems have been questioned for hundreds of years, but fundamentally its accepted that knowledge must come from a set of justifications, and therefore your beliefs are defined by these justifications along with evidence and reasoning.

if you're willing to re-define for convenience sake what rational you have for following a set of beliefs, then you can't automatically conclude that what you believe in is knowledge.

it's like the "world is flat " example. it's flawed logic. a person that believes that the world is flat, doesn't know that the world is flat. in order for it to be knowledge someone must know it, and have evidence.

if you follow the Kuhnian take on science and call nearly anything a set of beliefs, then you cannot get upset when people refuse to listen to you along the way. its got nothing to do with being opened minded or closed minded. its the fundamental notion that deductive reasoning and analytical thought, lives in the same world as science, and one underscores the other.

ive read nothing in this thread cept for parsons first & seckles last, but one thing popped into my mind...

buckminster fuller, in a talk i seen on google video, describes a situation where he was going to talk for a group of cutting edge scientists somewhere at sometime, in the 60s probably... anyways, dude starts his talk by asking the scientists to raise their hands if they see the sun set...

they all raised their hands...


he then mocked them because the way they were SEEING was still hundreds of years behind their "knowledge"...


we all "know" that the earth is round, and travels around the sun.. but nobody actually sees that... such is our capacity as humans..

not sure if any of that is even relevant, but its what came to mind...

[black lotus]

belief systems = operating systems, soul is technology, etc.

belief systems have been questioned for hundreds of years, but fundamentally its accepted that knowledge must come from a set of justifications, and therefore your beliefs are defined by these justifications along with evidence and reasoning.

if you're willing to re-define for convenience sake what rational you have for following a set of beliefs, then you can't automatically conclude that what you believe in is knowledge.

it's like the "world is flat " example. it's flawed logic. a person that believes that the world is flat, doesn't know that the world is flat. in order for it to be knowledge someone must know it, and have evidence.

if you follow the Kuhnian take on science and call nearly anything a set of beliefs, then you cannot get upset when people refuse to listen to you along the way. its got nothing to do with being opened minded or closed minded. its the fundamental notion that deductive reasoning and analytical thought, lives in the same world as science, and one underscores the other.

yes, kuhn ! ken wilber references him a lot as well. also, the 'world is flat' is an example i use all of the time when someone thinks they know what's up. it doesn't upset me so much as it feels like someone on a soapbox explaining how they believe the world is flat and will hear no argument otherwise. they will even go so far as to explain detailed minutia supporting their beliefs. it's circular logic and it doesn't really help anyone, even if it claims to.

additionally, i had posted a video in another thread about one method for defining "good knowledge" and it's criteria. and since this is all seemingly harmless expressions of viewpoints, take a look if you are interested..

[parson]

the world is flat is a better argument for my side than anybody who doesn't believe me. (clinging to old-world perspective)

the world ain't round, the world has 10 dimensions of space, and 1 of time
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=XjsgoXvnStY

[black lotus]

the world is flat is a better argument for my side than anybody who doesn't believe me. (clinging to old-world perspective)

the world ain't round, the world has 10 dimensions of space, and 1 of time
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=XjsgoXvnStY

yes, anyone with a passing interest in string theory or quantum has seen that video. but whatever you like.. your argument is rock solid, clearly.

also, space is curved a.k.a. tube torus. so it is round(ed) as far as well can tell. i like michio kaku's explanations best.

also, slaughterhouse five lolz

[elbe]

the world is flat is a better argument for my side than anybody who doesn't believe me. (clinging to old-world perspective)

the world ain't round, the world has 10 dimensions of space, and 1 of time
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=XjsgoXvnStY

that only seems to work if you consider time as something constant. ie. that the past still exists and all possible futures exist. Personally I only think the now exists, therefore there is only ever one point.

certainly an interesting video but I couldn't help feeling that it was a false philosophy, a bit like that riddle where three people buy something for for a £10 the store decides to give them £5 off and send the change with the delivery boy, they each take a £1 change and the delivery boy take £2. they have thus all only paid £9, 3*9 = 27, delivery boy has 2, 27+2=29 where is the missing £?


It seemed odd trying to explain more dimensions using only 2.

[parson]

dude even einstein believed in time travel