Debate: Does it Proof you are a fool, or just a smart-***?

[David T]

I think we all fancy ourselves master debaters.

Nerd pun!!!

 

[David T]

I suppose the larger question here is who doesn't find arithmetic logical?

 

[Stevicus]

Debate: Does it Proof you are a fool, or just a smart-a.s.s?

I get a crush if ego get a crash

If other is right, debating him proofs I am a fool
If other is wrong, him debating proofs he's a fool

If one is in a discussion with an individual, one might still gain some knowledge - or at least hear some arguments they hadn't considered - even if the other person is wrong. It doesn't mean either of them are foolish; it's just an idle conversation between two individuals over the internet. It could just as easily happen in a private room, for as much significance as it actually has.

What I find truly foolish are those who argue over the internet not because they want to have a meeting of minds with an individual, but because they believe there's some "audience" out there which is really paying attention and truly cares about what they're arguing. They may have already decided they don't like their opponent and completely disregard what they say, yet they claim that they're continuing to argue out of "amusement" or because there are "lurkers out there" who might learn something.

At that point, you're not really dealing with a "debate" as much as competing performance artists.

 

[stvdv]

When I was younger, my ego always got the crash after the crush

Same here. Took me quite a few crushes+crashes to find my real Crush

 

[stvdv]

What I find truly foolish are those who argue over the internet not because they want to have a meeting of minds with an individual, but because they believe there's some "audience" out there which is really paying attention and truly cares about what they're arguing

Thanks, then you can call me a fool. And I'm proud of it.

 

[ChristineM]

I think we all fancy ourselves master debaters.

Speak for your self ;-)

 

[QuestioningMind]

The fault all lies in the concepts of proof...

Do you accept logic and empirical evidence as the only yardstick? If so, then all you did was limit the criteria to such a small scope no other information would be considered valid. Of course, that only works if the people you are debating with are stupid enough to accept that limitation.

There is inference, anecdotal evidence, and even subjective experiences are valid data as well. Essentially, the only way to win a debate is to trick your opponent into believing none of that matters or that they are less informed because of it. It's just poker with ideas...

Logic and empirical evidence aren't the ONLY yardstick, but they are by far the most reliable means humans beings have found to determine how reality works. Inference, anecdotal evidence and subjective experience cannot be reliably replicated and thus become rather poor methods for determining how reality works. I would contend that those who rely on inference, anecdotes, and subjective experience can only win if they're able to trick their opponent into believing that such 'evidence' is in any as reliable as logic and empirical evidence.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The rules of logical debate are put forward by Plato who also lists the various fallacies. Francis Bacon (millennia later) puts forward the ideals of experimental inquiry into nature. In debate you only use the former, and two can debate complete nonsense provided they use proper semantics.

 

[Mindmaster]

Logic and empirical evidence aren't the ONLY yardstick, but they are by far the most reliable means humans beings have found to determine how reality works. Inference, anecdotal evidence and subjective experience cannot be reliably replicated and thus become rather poor methods for determining how reality works. I would contend that those who rely on inference, anecdotes, and subjective experience can only win if they're able to trick their opponent into believing that such 'evidence' is in any as reliable as logic and empirical evidence.

I wouldn't say that I prefer those types of evidence, but in some cases that evidence is the only evidence. In those particular cases we have to basically determine 'trends' through sampling, asking questions, etc. It still leads to a proof rather than an opinion. The trap most logicians fall into is thinking everything can or needs to be proved via one mode of exploration - when there are many things that are evidenced by experience only.

The demand for explicit types of evidence at the exception of all of all others is a religious belief in its essence. You have no way to prove those are more valid than other types, but you like one versus the other. The only answer to the conundrum is to take your subjective evidence, personal experience, and also empirical data and use them all. Anything else doesn't provide an accurate model.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I wouldn't say that I prefer those types of evidence, but in some cases that evidence is the only evidence. In those particular cases we have to basically determine 'trends' through sampling, asking questions, etc. It still leads to a proof rather than an opinion. The trap most logicians fall into is thinking everything can or needs to be proved via one mode of exploration - when there are many things that are evidenced by experience only.

The demand for explicit types of evidence at the exception of all of all others is a religious belief in its essence. You have no way to prove those are more valid than other types, but you like one versus the other. The only answer to the conundrum is to take your subjective evidence, personal experience, and also empirical data and use them all. Anything else doesn't provide an accurate model.

If unreliable evidence that can't be replicated is the only evidence you have, then it's probably not sufficient to warrant belief. Only using verifiable evidence to determine beliefs is not a religious belief in any way shape or form. It's simply the most reliable means of ascertaining the truth that human beings have thus far come across. It's the exact same method I use when evaluating any fantastical claim, weather it be a religious claim or not.

 

[Mindmaster]

If unreliable evidence that can't be replicated is the only evidence you have, then it's probably not sufficient to warrant belief. Only using verifiable evidence to determine beliefs is not a religious belief in any way shape or form. It's simply the most reliable means of ascertaining the truth that human beings have thus far come across. It's the exact same method I use when evaluating any fantastical claim, weather it be a religious claim or not.

For you, if you appropriately quantify those statements.

The are fantastical claims and claims that are just verifiable by direct experience. It's good to know the difference between them. No amount of logic will prove this or that in that case. That's the fault with 'pure logic' in a nutshell... You can be logical and be aware that this subjective information is invaluable as well. However, you are narrowing the scope again with the mention with 'fantastical claims' you could extend that to blind faith and yes I'm against that sort of defense in an argument. But from where I sit militant application of logic and blind faith are the same thing, apples to apples... Whether your faith is in a book, or in a science or methodology it's still faith. I prefer to have none of that faith in my personal realm of experience period - I'm happy if science is wrong, religion is wrong, or whatever. I allow them all to be wrong if my personal experience provides information to the contrary.

 

[QuestioningMind]

For you, if you appropriately quantify those statements.

The are fantastical claims and claims that are just verifiable by direct experience. It's good to know the difference between them. No amount of logic will prove this or that in that case. That's the fault with 'pure logic' in a nutshell... You can be logical and be aware that this subjective information is invaluable as well. However, you are narrowing the scope again with the mention with 'fantastical claims' you could extend that to blind faith and yes I'm against that sort of defense in an argument. But from where I sit militant application of logic and blind faith are the same thing, apples to apples... Whether your faith is in a book, or in a science or methodology it's still faith. I prefer to have none of that faith in my personal realm of experience period - I'm happy if science is wrong, religion is wrong, or whatever. I allow them all to be wrong if my personal experience provides information to the contrary.

Please provide an example of a claim that can only be verified by direct experience.

 

[stvdv]

Please provide an example of a claim that can only be verified by direct experience

If 2 people have sex, a baby will be born

 

[Mindmaster]

Please provide an example of a claim that can only be verified by direct experience.

If you can't think of a few, I think might be wasting my time.

 

[Stevicus]

Please provide an example of a claim that can only be verified by direct experience.

I would say that any claim that involves a prediction would fall into that category.

For example, the claims that "the US economy will improve if we impose tariffs" versus "the US economy will get worse if we impose tariffs." Neither claim can be proven until the policy is actually implemented.

 

[QuestioningMind]

If 2 people have sex, a baby will be born

Sorry, but you don't have to have sex that results in a baby to know that it takes sex between two people to have a baby.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I would say that any claim that involves a prediction would fall into that category.

For example, the claims that "the US economy will improve if we impose tariffs" versus "the US economy will get worse if we impose tariffs." Neither claim can be proven until the policy is actually implemented.

Actually we have over 200 years of history with the US economy and tariffs as well as thousands of years of economic history with tariffs on which to base the claim. That's how statistics are used to make accurate predictions.

 

[Stevicus]

Actually we have over 200 years of history with the US economy and tariffs as well as thousands of years of economic history with tariffs on which to base the claim. That's how statistics are used to make accurate predictions.

Accuracy is not guaranteed.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why should I get into pointless discussions - like this one.

It's in general debates. Give it a go! *Grin*

 

[QuestioningMind]

Accuracy is not guaranteed.

It never is... but verifiable evidence is far more accurate than using any other method.