ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING!

Reply
Old 15th May 2018, 01:17 PM   #801
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,272
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Maybe it's like the sheep-goat effect: Jabba's effective debate is only ineffective when critical thinkers are nearby.

Again, this is an excuse frequently used by purveyors of woo.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2018, 01:18 PM   #802
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,272
I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasnt for them pesky skeptics.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2018, 01:21 PM   #803
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 11,868
I can't help but feel that "I've developed a perfect debate method that only works if nobody questions any of my claims" is a less than useful skill to have.

Jabba has created the argumentative equivalent of an invisibility cloak that only works when you're playing the trombone.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2018, 01:45 PM   #804
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,301
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- The current jury is a group of totally dedicated skeptics, so it would be fruitless to respond to their objections.
The current jury is one that you have repeatedly selected to judge your claims. Your excuse is hollow.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2018, 02:06 PM   #805
carlitos
"ms divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,195
Responding to the objections of skeptics is how critical thinkers hone their arguments.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2018, 08:31 PM   #806
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,756
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasnt for them pesky skeptics.
Well, here's the thing. Mention a religious artifact and -- more often than not -- you'll have the faithful on one side and the skeptics on another. It doesn't take a genius to predict that. Mention having an immortal soul and again you'll probably have the skeptics on one side and the religious on the other. There's a very predictable enmity at play in those debates.

But mention a method for having an effective debate, and that's something that its proponent and skeptics should be lining up on the same side for. We're all for effective debate. On this topic Jabba is going to have a very hard time trying to argue that his opponents are ideologically opposed to him. Rather, Jabba's claims to have discovered effective debate are being judged purely on their merits. But he's so used to vilifying and blaming skeptics that he is just following that rut. It's a knee-jerk reaction for him to dismiss criticism as ideologically biased, even when there patently isn't any such bias.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 12:15 AM   #807
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,574
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- The current jury is a group of totally dedicated skeptics, so it would be fruitless to respond to their objections.

This means that Effective Public Debate is only effective when there is already agreement on a subject.

How exactly is that a debate?
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 05:18 AM   #808
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
...
5. In the post I'm responding to you reference multiple sub-topics, I thought we weren't doing it that way? I don't want to respond to both because I thought that was against the rules, and if I'm going to just pick one of them I'm not sure which one to pick. (In this particular case it doesn't matter much, as neither one is an actual question or argument against my position so they don't really need a reply.)...
- I don't think this is an issue any more...
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 06:09 AM   #809
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,047
Can we start to summarize the evaluation of Effective Written Debate? Its basic tenants are a single spokes-person for each side, each of whom is assisted by outside experts. So far, it has been declared that the method for two people to ask and answer questions back and forth has never properly been considered and needs to be worked out. Also, the method of choosing and evaluating experts is not defined.

Other than that, it seems to be working well.
Monza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 06:12 AM   #810
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,756
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I don't think this is an issue any more...
So then the answer to his question is ... ?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 06:14 AM   #811
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,714
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I don't think this is an issue any more...
I'd like an answer, actually - that's why I asked. This is also an example of you wasting your limited response time. You could have very easily and quickly answered the question, but instead you took the time to reply and didn't give an answer on the assumption I don't want to know anymore.

It's pretty simple. The answer is either "You're right, I should have stuck to one thing" or "no, you can ask about multiple topics".
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 06:36 AM   #812
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,087
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- The current jury is a group of totally dedicated skeptics, so it would be fruitless to respond to their objections.
You have a bizarre definition of the word "skeptic" if you actually think this. A skeptic is someone who assesses the evidence, forms a working conclusion and then revises that conclusion in the light of further evidence. If you respond successfully to the objection of a skeptic, overcoming the substance of that objection, then a skeptic is the type of person most likely to revise their opinion in your favour. So, in fact, what is truly fruitless is to fail to respond to the objections of a group of totally dedicated skeptics, because they will then have no reason to re-examine the conclusions that led them to those objections.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 07:05 AM   #813
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,714
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
I'd like an answer, actually [...] The answer is either "You're right, I should have stuck to one thing" or "no, you can ask about multiple topics".
You know what? To speed this along I'm going to pick an answer for you. Let's say the answer is "Nah, you can ask about as many topics as you want" since you've already said that the other person only has to answer one question at a time. That just means that the "attorney" may be letting the "witness" decide which branch they're working on.

Okay so then here are the rules for Effective Debate, all cleaned up and including your rule clarifications. These are taken from this thread and from Jabba's website.

JABBA'S ACTUALLY EFFECTIVE DEBATE RULES:

1. The debate should be one on one, but in theory you could have different teams addressing different sub-topics.

2. Both participants should pretend to respect both the other participant and that person's argument. They should stick to the guidelines and politely point out when the other person violates them, but the actual decision on if a rule has been violated is up to the jury.

3. The debate should start with one side providing a brief. The other side can give one too, or not. After this the two will alternate turns, each turn consisting of answering a question posed by their opponent and asking one themselves. If more than one question is asked you can specify which one is the priority, otherwise the other participant can pick which one to answer.

4. There is no time limit to how long someone can wait to answer a question. If they give an incomplete or incomprehensible answer it will hopefully be noted by the jury and the debate should continue.

5. Each side will track discussion and arguments in a sort of chart or "tree" (This may include 2 or more trees per person, as they track their own argument and that of the other person).

6. Participants can jump to a new 'branch' any time they want, and can even ask questions relevant to multiple branches in a single turn, but in theory should pick the one that seems like the biggest issue.

7. It's okay if not every branch gets addressed - if you find a fatal flaw early on you wouldn't need to also address the other branches.

8. The debate continues until both participants agree it's over or one of them quits (either due to believing their case has been made or because they feel the debate has broken down). At that point the jury decides the outcome.

9. The participants are free to ignore the jury both on individual issues and the final ruling if they don't feel like it is sympathetic enough to their side, or if they don't feel that they have sufficient time to pay attention to it.

Last edited by SOdhner; 16th May 2018 at 07:08 AM.
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 07:29 AM   #814
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
I'd like an answer, actually - that's why I asked. This is also an example of you wasting your limited response time. You could have very easily and quickly answered the question, but instead you took the time to reply and didn't give an answer on the assumption I don't want to know anymore.

It's pretty simple. The answer is either "You're right, I should have stuck to one thing" or "no, you can ask about multiple topics".
- Unfortunately, I'm still a little confused. I think that my answer is that under my rules, the attorney may ask all the questions desired, but the witness must answer only one (if desired). At that point, the spokes person that had been the witness becomes the attorney and may ask whatever questions desired.
- I had considered the universe topic and the method of debate topic as being sub-topics of the effective debate topic.
- So, I think that my answer should have been, "No, you can ask about multiple sub-topics."
- A comment can be a"questions" in that it may provoke a retort.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 07:38 AM   #815
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,714
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I think that my answer is
You don't know what your own answer is? Interesting.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I had considered the universe topic and the method of debate topic as being sub-topics of the effective debate topic.
Kind of, sure.

The effective debate topic is a conversation on a forum, and is not itself a debate.

The center-of-the-universe thing is a debate, which is happening so that people can see a demonstration of your debate method. This will let them discuss it better, since until then it was kinda vaguely defined.

The current discussion of the specific rules is not part of a debate, but by necessity the debate can't continue until the rules are clear and it's clearly an important part of the effective debate conversation.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
So, I think that my answer should have been, "No, you can ask about multiple sub-topics."
Good, that's what I guessed in my above post.
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 08:38 AM   #816
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
You don't know what your own answer is? Interesting...
- I didn't because I still wasn't sure that I understood your question.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 08:41 AM   #817
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Sodhner,
- Is it OK with you that I go back to the universe debate?
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 08:49 AM   #818
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 11,868
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Sodhner,
- Is it OK with you that I go back to the universe debate?
Sure whatever. Since you have no intention of ever actually answering anything it doesn't matter where the conversation you go to.

You've created way but a transparent way to stall a discussion forever.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 08:49 AM   #819
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,756
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Unfortunately, I'm still a little confused. I think that my answer is...
I don't understand how you could be confused about rules you've been developing for fifty years. Every debate format has rules of order. That's the single most important thing they can have. If you had been developing this system by repeated trial and error, you'd have run into this 49.99 years ago and solved it in the same way as, say, the U.S. Senates rules do, or the rules of American civil legal procedure.

Quote:
...the attorney may ask all the questions desired, but the witness must answer only one (if desired).
Well, okay, but here you're breaking from the American civil procedure. After a defendant indicates his intent to litigate the complaint, a set of interrogatories is exchanged. Each party is responsible for providing a brief answer to each of the other's interrogatives to indicate what which points are to be contested and which other points are to be conceded or stipulated. Only after this exchange do the arguments begin reduction.

Quote:
At that point, the spokes person that had been the witness becomes the attorney and may ask whatever questions desired.
But then at what point is the first party entitled to an answer to the question he already asked? It seems that jsfisher is right: you're just winging this. If a person can ask any number of questions, but is entitled to an answer only to one of them -- apparently of the defending party's choosing -- and then must yield the floor, this is tantamount to being allowed to ask only one question at a time.

Yes, you're still a little confused. And you aren't really paying attention to the people who are helping you de-confound your method.

Quote:
I had considered the universe topic and the method of debate topic as being sub-topics of the effective debate topic.
No. The center-of-the-universe topic is a sample debate you're having with S0dhner so that you can show us what effective debate is supposed to look like. Outside of that purpose, discussions of cosmology would be off-topic for Social Issues & Current Events. The product of your debate with S0dhner is supposed to be a discussion of how well your method is working and how well you're able to stick to it and be effective. There is a lively discussion about that happening all around you, with many good questions and contributions. You're ignoring that entirely, which seems very strange for someone who has asked to have that discussion and who has said he has studied this topic for 50 years. The reason you gave for ignoring it seems strangely enough to be that you categorically think so little of your chosen that you say their posts don't even deserve your attention.

The center-of-the-universe debate necessarily sticks to your rules of debate. As such, everyone except you and S0dhner is largely staying out of it. The debate over your method does not follow your rules. It is an ordinary debate under the ordinary ground rules of ISF, just as all your other threads here. In that case, you don't get to foist your rules on everyone else in the thread and demand they follow them.

Quote:
So, I think that my answer should have been, "No, you can ask about multiple sub-topics."
That just kicks the rules-of-order and contempt questions down the road.

Quote:
A comment can be a"questions" in that it may provoke a retort.
It's hard to imagine an element of a debate that doesn't expect a response. This is why it's important to get the rules of order right early on. Fifty years later, you're still grappling with the basics.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 08:57 AM   #820
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,756
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Is it OK with you that I go back to the universe debate?
Asked and answered. There is the toy debate on the center-of-the-universe issue, meant to illustrate your method. Then there is the discussion of the method itself. There is necessarily some crossover, as S0dhner once pointed out. The question of how you chose Marilyn vos Savant and two physicists from GE arose from your desire to invoke expertise as part of your rebuttal in the center-of-the-universe debate. That's an in-universe (if you'll pardon the expression) topic upon which we're inching toward a resolution. You tried to break it out and make it a meta-issue of how you would revise your method in the future to choose experts. S0dhner rightly refused to let you do that, because that wasn't his actual question. Now it seems you want to abandon his in-universe line of questioning for a different -- presumably easier -- in-universe line of questioning, which is not allowed in your rules. Nor would it be allowed in any system designed to hold people accountable for bad ideas. When cornered, you stay cornered.

This jurist thinks you're trying to change the subject because you've been cornered on a question you can't answer, but upon which you don't want to concede defeat. That subject is your ham-fisted attempt to pose non-experts as experts in the center-of-the-universe debate as an attempt to show by their expressed confusion that the question is somehow unfathomably deep. When S0dhner agrees that you have answered completely his question on the table, you can move on.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 09:00 AM   #821
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
This means that Effective Public Debate is only effective when there is already agreement on a subject.

How exactly is that a debate?
No. It means that public debate can't be effective when all the members of the audience are emotionally committed to the same side.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 09:01 AM   #822
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,714
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Is it OK with you that I go back to the universe debate?
I recapped the rules a few posts ago, if you agree that's accurate then absolutely we can continue. We left off with you trying to answer my question about how you decide if someone is an expert, but per your rules if you're not going to answer that further the jury would just note that I don't feel it was answered properly and we would move on.
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 09:11 AM   #823
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 11,868
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
No. It means that public debate can't be effective when all the members of the audience are emotionally committed to the same side.
That's not how reality works Jabba. Not every debate has two equally valid sides that entering the discussion on equal footing.

You see your opponents as "emotionally committed to the same side" when all there is a bunch of people growing increasingly frustrated trying explain basic concepts to a grown man who's both incapable of understanding the simplest of concepts and intent upon creating a system where that doesn't matter.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 16th May 2018 at 09:19 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 09:16 AM   #824
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,756
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
No. It means that public debate can't be effective when all the members of the audience are emotionally committed to the same side.
You characterize your audience as committed skeptics. If that's true, then by definition they are not emotionally committed to anything. They may hold a conclusion, but by the philosophy of rational skepticism that conclusion will be held on the basis of evidence and sound principles of reason. Other skeptics will help them determine whether a belief is emotionally held or rationally held. Skepticism doesn't mean not holding a belief. It means holding a belief based on evidence and reason, which may be overturned by additional evidence or better reason. You're being asked to provide evidence that your method is sound, and you can't. Your method is being criticized on the merits.

You haven't shown any evidence that your audience here is emotionally biased. In fact, you simply declare them to be unworthy of your attention. In order to prove their arguments are emotionally biased, you would actually have to examine them and point out the emotional bias. Thus you would have to pay them attention. You all but admit that your rejection of criticism has no rational basis. On the other hand, I can point to many, many posts you have ignored which have addressed your claims on their merits according to the evidence.

Finally, effective debate is something skeptics are completely on board with. Even if we accept for the sake of argument that your audience is biased, they are biased toward the same goal as you -- the establishment of rules and principles for effective debate. Now that hasn't always been true for your other threads here. You've argued various propositions that you could plausible say would be opposed by skeptics. But this isn't one of them. You're so used to blaming everything on the supposed bias of your audience that it's become second-nature and unconscious to you. A bias, if you will. You're clearly biased against skeptics, and that prejudice is having an effect on the strength of your argument because you're citing the biased belief wrongly in dismissing merit-based rebuttals. "My critics are skeptics and therefore have nothing to say that's worth my attention."

Thank you for providing the opportunity for us to show you how to detect a bias and formulate an argument for its influence on an argument.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 09:18 AM   #825
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,047
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
No. It means that public debate can't be effective when all the members of the audience are emotionally committed to the same side.

I don't think that's what is happening here or in the Shroud and Immortality threads. Myself, and several others, were willing to listen to each side before making up our minds. My mind can still be changed with sufficient reason and logic.

Do you believe that those who don't agree with you are automatically emotionally invested? Is it possible that a neutral juror could listen to both sides then decide that you are wrong? Once a juror makes a decision, is he no longer a neutral juror and his opinion is no longer relevant?

As was pointed out earlier, skepticism is not a position. It is a process. Skeptics do not agree on every issue. They do agree on the process by which they evaluate evidence and form an opinion, though those opinions may differ.
Monza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 09:26 AM   #826
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,301
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Well, here's the thing. Mention a religious artifact and -- more often than not -- you'll have the faithful on one side and the skeptics on another. It doesn't take a genius to predict that. Mention having an immortal soul and again you'll probably have the skeptics on one side and the religious on the other. There's a very predictable enmity at play in those debates.

But mention a method for having an effective debate, and that's something that its proponent and skeptics should be lining up on the same side for. We're all for effective debate. On this topic Jabba is going to have a very hard time trying to argue that his opponents are ideologically opposed to him. Rather, Jabba's claims to have discovered effective debate are being judged purely on their merits. But he's so used to vilifying and blaming skeptics that he is just following that rut. It's a knee-jerk reaction for him to dismiss criticism as ideologically biased, even when there patently isn't any such bias.
This actually clarifies something very important, for me.

Jabba's not actually trying (and failing) to unveil a novel method of debate. He's trying to traduce acceptance of the debate method he's been demonstrating here for years. Which is probably part of why his "method" seems so haphazard and unexamined. He's got to put on a show of having invented a better way of getting at the truth. But what he really means is, we should concede that the method he's been using is effective. This would be a lot easier if we all just agreed that he'd proven his claims about the shroud, immortality, etc.

Ironically, his actual method is indeed effective. S0dner's claim is trivially rebutted. But Jabba's method is to avoid any productive examination of a claim. He has here the task of examining and challenging the claim. But he's a slave to his method, and can only run away from any such examination. This serves him better when it's his claim that's being challenged. When he's the one supposed to be doing the challenging, it's just tragicomic.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 09:29 AM   #827
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,756
Originally Posted by Monza View Post
I don't think that's what is happening here or in the Shroud and Immortality threads.
Exactly the opposite happened in the immortality debate. Jabba said in as many words that he was emotionally invested in the both the notion that he had an immortal soul and in the belief that he could prove it mathematically. He confessed outright that he would be emotionally devastated if his mathematical proof didn't pan out.

But then of course Jabba was a proponent in that debate, not an "audience." In Jabba's model, the proponents are supposed to be committed to their side, although I think he'd agree that a strong emotional commitment is probably not what he was talking about. But it raises another question in that Jabba's debates here don't have "audiences" the way his method describes them. And, frankly, they never will. The only role the audience plays in his method as practiced here is to be an imaginary yardstick against which he can measure the real reception of his argument -- "You people are all biased; the perfect audience I'm imagining in my head would have accepted my argument."

It's unclear whether Jabba accepts us here as a jury for the center-of-the-universe debate. Predictably he's swapping those roles depending on which body of rules he can invoke to designify that role. If we're the jury, then he can invalidate us because we're supposedly biased. If we're critics of his method, then he can ignore us because S0dhner is his anointed interlocutor.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 09:37 AM   #828
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 11,868
It's the same reason movies where one person is the writer, director, and main actor you almost with a total mess because you have multiple roles who job it is to keep each other in check to some degree being filled by the same person so you have nobody to tell the actor his performance doesn't work, nobody to tell the director he's not letting his actor display their best range, and nobody to give feedback to writer for what story beats don't work.

Basically I'm saying Jabba is the Madea of internet discussions.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 09:45 AM   #829
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,775
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
No. It means that public debate can't be effective when all the members of the audience are emotionally committed to the same side.
Don't you claim to be a Christian of some sort?

How exactly can a member of a religion where outreach and conversion is a fundamental cornerstone of the region's history and practice take such a mewling, defeatist, attitude towards an indifferent or hostile audience?
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 09:48 AM   #830
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 11,868
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
How exactly can a member of a religion where outreach and conversion is a fundamental cornerstone of the region's history and practice take such a mewling, defeatist, attitude towards an indifferent or hostile audience?
It's pretty easy when you maintain a double standard. As JayUtah pointed out Jabba is on record as admitted he's massively emotionally attached to his idea of immorality and the Shroud but those are different because of reasons.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 10:04 AM   #831
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,756
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
But what he really means is, we should concede that the method he's been using is effective. This would be a lot easier if we all just agreed that he'd proven his claims about the shroud, immortality, etc.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but what he really wants is for us to concede that he's smarter than everyone else. He's got a nice tight circle of reasoning that leads to him being the smart one no matter what the actual outcome. I should probably put "smart" in cautionary quotes because we have to delve deeper. In the Shroud and immortality debates, he frequently asserted that he was a natural "holistic" thinker while everyone else was limited to "analytical" thought. He suggested that his argument would be acceptable in a "holistic" sense, and that a suitable jury would see this. Basically when he couldn't demonstrate that he really was smarter than everyone else, he invented a new way of being smart that fit his goal.

Even still, there were pathetic displays such as when jsfisher was holding Jabba's feet to the fire over a simple concept like probability density, and Jabba was still trying to say he knew statistics better than everyone else there. You wonder whom he's trying to convince. Over at Talk Stats they shot him down pretty fast from a mathematical standpoint. His answer was that "official" statisticians (his quotes) might reject his proof, but more open-minded ones wouldn't. It's very hard to see this as anything more than an ego-reinforcement exercise.

Quote:
But he's a slave to his method, and can only run away from any such examination.
I'll admit I find it amusing that Jabba appears to be grappling with two methods. There's the codified method that we're discussing, and then there's the method Jabba actually uses. The latter includes all his gaslighting, repetition, equivocating, obfuscation, repetition, theatrics, evasion, and repetition. It's funny to watch him try to add them to the codex of rules, only to realize what a mess it makes of them. It's the blernsball edition of debate.

Quote:
This serves him better when it's his claim that's being challenged.
S0dhner is also doing a remarkable job of showing the flaws in Jabba's method. He appears to be conscientiously and diligently employing them, and we're all stuck in the mud. Here's Jabba pleading to move on, and S0dhner's holding him to his principles. Smacks of all the times in Jabba's previous debate that others wanted to decide a topic and move on, and Jabba found one more sub42-issue to contend.

Quote:
When he's the one supposed to be doing the challenging, it's just tragicomic.
Yeah, if you lose a debate by failing to figure out how to rebut the trivially rebuttable, you're clearly doing something wrong.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 10:08 AM   #832
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 11,868
Again as with all things Jabbian there is no dog and no tail, everything is wagging every other thing in equal amounts.

Jabba's "Effective Debate Style" is a transparent backdoor long form (really, really long form) apologetic excuse for his Shroud and Immortality arguments while the Shroud and Immortality arguments all carry the performance art shtick of Jabba defeating the big mean skeptics in a battle of debate.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 10:18 AM   #833
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,301
There's also the awkwardness of alleging a method patterned on the question-and-answer of a courtroom trial, without recognizing that the courtoom Q&A is the least part of the method. By the time the case gets to court, the lawyer has already examined all the evidence and constructed his argument in its entirety. The questions and answers are just the formal process of making his argument to the jury. Jabba purports to use the courtroom drama as a method of discovering evidence and constructing an argument. But actually that stuff happens before the trial, by other methods.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 10:20 AM   #834
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 11,868
Yeah as in Jabba think his argument would be unbeatable in a court room while the reality is it would never make into a court room.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 10:36 AM   #835
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,301
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Sodhner,
- Is it OK with you that I go back to the universe debate?
Jabba, how did your supposedly effective debate method get so far away from the topic of debate that you have to ask permission to return to it? What part of effective debate is that?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 10:56 AM   #836
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,775
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Jabba, how did your supposedly effective debate method get so far away from the topic of debate that you have to ask permission to return to it? What part of effective debate is that?
I believe that's the "Mewling" stage of Jabba's debate strategy as it's actually practiced.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 11:23 AM   #837
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
I recapped the rules a few posts ago, if you agree that's accurate then absolutely we can continue. We left off with you trying to answer my question about how you decide if someone is an expert, but per your rules if you're not going to answer that further the jury would just note that I don't feel it was answered properly and we would move on.
- Correct.
- Did you read the "Live Science" article?
https://www.livescience.com/62547-wh...e=notification
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 11:36 AM   #838
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Sodhner,
- Sorry. Try this link.
https://www.livescience.com/62547-wh...e=notification
- Wherever you -- or I -- go will appear to be the center of the universe.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 11:38 AM   #839
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 11,868
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Wherever you -- or I -- go will appear to be the center of the universe.
OKAY AND?

Wish you could get the point of your argument as well as you can get to the point at the center of the universe.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 11:49 AM   #840
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,714
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Correct.
Great, thanks for confirming! I'll be sure to follow those rules going forward.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Did you read the "Live Science" article?
No, I didn't.

Okay my turn for a question. Jabba, rather than just trying to poke holes in my argument do you have a proactive argument for some other spot being the center of the universe?
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:26 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.