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
 

Notices


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 13th April 2013, 08:39 AM   #1
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Actually Effective Written Debate/Effective Public Debate

- I think that the following concept deserves a serious and friendly discussion on THIS website, but I don't think that any of the "general topics" here is appropriate. Any suggestions?

- Something taken from my website at http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=86.



3-4. Why & Why Not



3. Why Debate?

3.1. To effectively weigh the evidence, we (humans) need to ‘hear’ both sides of the story.

3.2. In addition, we need to hear each side from the side itself – not both sides as represented by just one of the sides…

3.3. But then, once we humans lean towards a particular side, listening to the other side becomes rather painful — so mostly, we avoid doing it…

3.4. But that’s true until we can do more than listen – until we are given the chance to respond to the other side’s “foolishness”…

3.5. Or even better, until we are given the chance to ‘listen’ to an expert from our side respond…

3.6. Juxtaposed pro and con articles in the newspaper make for a good step in the right direction – but only a small step. Unfortunately, such attempts inevitably leave all sorts of “loose ends,” and change very few minds.

3.7. What we need to hear is dialogue between the two sides as they respond back and forth to each other’s questions and comments.

3.8. In other words, what we all need to hear is debate.

3.9. But then, what we really need to hear is effective debate — and, effective debate hardly ever happens…



- Thanks.

--- Jabba
__________________
"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 è 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 13th April 2013, 08:58 AM   #2
ehcks
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
An effective debate requires that all debaters have an argument and clearly state all evidence they have either for or against it.

If one debater has no evidence, they have lost, because their argument is not valid.
__________________
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
ehcks 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 13th April 2013, 09:03 AM   #3
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,352
Likewise controlling the method of debate is a technique used by woosters to control the debate.
catsmate 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 13th April 2013, 09:04 AM   #4
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,679
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I think that the following concept deserves a serious and friendly discussion on THIS website, but I don't think that any of the "general topics" here is appropriate. Any suggestions?


Yeah.

Quit while you're ahead.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten 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 13th April 2013, 09:08 AM   #5
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,015
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post








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 13th April 2013, 09:09 AM   #6
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 18,832
Debate around here when it comes to fringe ideas amounts to sceptics trying to extract good evidence and honest argument. If that is ever produced then minds will change.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon 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 13th April 2013, 09:24 AM   #7
Akri
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,349
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
3.1. To effectively weigh the evidence, we (humans) need to ‘hear’ both sides of the story.
Unfortunately in the Shroud thread you aren't presenting any evidence for your side. The anti-authenticity side, meanwhile, has both presented evidence and repeatedly requested that you do the same. So the person preventing effective debate is you.

Quote:
3.3. But then, once we humans lean towards a particular side, listening to the other side becomes rather painful — so mostly, we avoid doing it…
Don't assume that because you do something others do as well. Some people actively seek out opposing viewpoints and seriously study them.

Quote:
3.4. But that’s true until we can do more than listen – until we are given the chance to respond to the other side’s “foolishness”…
And this forum does that. Nobody is forbidden from posting on account of others thinking they're foolish.

Quote:
3.5. Or even better, until we are given the chance to ‘listen’ to an expert from our side respond…
That's only valid when your side has an expert. Not all sides are equal in every debate.

Quote:
3.7. What we need to hear is dialogue between the two sides as they respond back and forth to each other’s questions and comments.
Agreed. Does this mean you'll start actually giving meaningful responses when people ask you questions, instead of always telling them that you'll have a response at a later date?
Akri 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 13th April 2013, 09:30 AM   #8
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I think that the following concept deserves a serious and friendly discussion on THIS website, but I don't think that any of the "general topics" here is appropriate. Any suggestions?

- Something taken from my website at http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=86.



3-4. Why & Why Not



3. Why Debate?

3.1. To effectively weigh the evidence, we (humans) need to ‘hear’ both sides of the story.
This is bordering on the fair and balanced fallacy. There is sometimes only one side. Would you hear both side of the evidence , between somebody which wanted to debate that Hitler never existed and WW2 was a jewish conpiracy by rothshield, and the other side which says historien pretending WW2 happened and Hitler was a deranged genocidial dictator ?

In fact no. The same as a two persons wanting to hold two theory : flat earth and round earth. You would not even bother with the falt earther for many many obvious scientific reason.

The reason for that is simple : there is an humongus amount of *prexisting* evidence , scientific and historical one, which has to be addressed first by the person having the extraordinary claim.

In our shourd case, the evidence which are extraordinary solid is 1) the theory on isotopic half live 2) the 14C isotopic knowledge we have 3) the isotopic results of the shroud 4) the fact that there has never ever been an invisible patch and the shroud was examinated by specialist. There is incontrovertible evidence, and YOU have no evidence agaisnt them. You have rethoric play, mudslinging, attack and attempt to insinue people were liar.

Furthermore in a debate to have two side, the two side must at elast debate on the same level of knowledge. It has been incresingly evidence you have no *********** clue on 14C dating at the starts. In the eman time it has been increasingly evidence you jsut reshash what other shroudies told you , you have had no knowledge of the facts. most if not all facts were NOT brought by you in the thread.


FInally to have a debate you would have the willingness to recongize and accept when a valid piece of evidence has been brought forward and whether a piece of rethoric that has been presented to you ahs been refuted / debunked. You have definitively not shown you are able to do that. Time and time again you have been shown that you are factually wrong (like the wholle bloody blood presence on the shroud : it is IRRRELAVANT as the blood if present could not be dated ! OR even you not recognizing that people were flaggelled willingly or not the whole 2000 last years!).

Quote:
3.2. In addition, we need to hear each side from the side itself – not both sides as represented by just one of the sides…
There is no side. There is science with a results, and you refusing that result due to belief.

Quote:
3.3. But then, once we humans lean towards a particular side, listening to the other side becomes rather painful — so mostly, we avoid doing it…
There is no side. There is science with a results, and you refusing that result due to belief.
This has been so PAINFULLY obvious to anybody with modcimum of neutrality visiting the thread.

Quote:
3.4. But that’s true until we can do more than listen – until we are given the chance to respond to the other side’s “foolishness”…
you are not listening. Ever.

Quote:
3.5. Or even better, until we are given the chance to ‘listen’ to an expert from our side respond…
Says the one which never listen to many of the objection which were told him 100 times. Like the bloody bloody bloody blood objection.

Quote:
3.6. Juxtaposed pro and con articles in the newspaper make for a good step in the right direction – but only a small step. Unfortunately, such attempts inevitably leave all sorts of “loose ends,” and change very few minds.
Newspaper want to sell. Newspaper often intentionally make up a second side to have a controversy. Because controversy and trolling SELLS. Thus we have a lot of apparent controversy on evolution ? NOT on the science side,in absence of new evidence. But in newspaper : yes. We have a lot of controversy on global warming ? Not really on the science side, in absence of new evidence. But reading newspaper or watching fox news you would think so. We have controversy on the shroud ? Not really. it is settled for science in absence of new evidence. Shroud is 14th century. And you have shown no factual evidence whatsoever.

Quote:
3.7. What we need to hear is dialogue between the two sides as they respond back and forth to each other’s questions and comments.
You have not shown a willingness to UNDERSTAND our objection. For example how many time 10's of us told you presence of blood is not evidenced, but even if it was it is irrelevant since you cannot date the blood !

Quote:
3.8. In other words, what we all need to hear is debate.
There is no debate in absence of new evidence. Tehre is only a unwillignness for you to accept the scientific incontrovertible evidence. There is an unwillignness to bloody udnerstand that presence of blood (not even evidenced) would be irrelevant in absentia of a dating of the blood.

Quote:
3.9. But then, what we really need to hear is effective debate — and, effective debate hardly ever happens…
It is indeed inneffective toa rgue a believer with a blind faith , by presenting him scientific actual dating evidence. Youa re like a creationist refusing to believe the earth is not 6000 years old.

Quote:
[/b][/i]
- Thanks.

--- Jabba
Sure. Whatever.
Aepervius 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 13th April 2013, 09:31 AM   #9
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,679
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Any suggestions?

3-4.



3.

3.1.

3.2.

3.3.

3.4.

3.5.

3.6.

3.7.

3.8.

3.9.


--Jabba


Lose this idiotic formatting immediately.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten 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 13th April 2013, 09:53 AM   #10
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Quote:
- I think that the following concept deserves a serious and friendly discussion on THIS website, but I don't think that any of the "general topics" here is appropriate. Any suggestions?
I'll get back to you as soon as possible.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones 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 13th April 2013, 10:26 AM   #11
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Oh goody. Someone who can't find a single reference after 20 years of research is going to teach scientists how to debate.

Quote:
3.1. To effectively weigh the evidence, we (humans) need to ‘hear’ both sides of the story.
False Equivalency Fallacy. Some sides simply have nothing to say.

Second, if you want us to hear your side, you need to tell us your side. You rather forgot to do that in the shroud thread. In over a year, you presented practically no reference and what references you did present were completely debunked.

This is one of those things that sounds good, but in fact is terrible advice. We don't need to hear both sides--we need to examine the evidence. The sides are irrelevant. As soon as you start thinking about a scientific debate in terms of sides you create an "Us vs. Them" mentality that destroys your objectivity. This is demonstrated by the rest of your post.

Quote:
3.2. In addition, we need to hear each side from the side itself – not both sides as represented by just one of the sides…
This is a failing on your part. You forgot to present your side.

Quote:
3.3. But then, once we humans lean towards a particular side, listening to the other side becomes rather painful — so mostly, we avoid doing it…
Gotta love thinly-veiled insults.

Quote:
3.4. But that’s true until we can do more than listen – until we are given the chance to respond to the other side’s “foolishness”…
You mean like accusing the other side of fraud multiple times? Oh, wait, that doesn't count because it's YOUR side doing it!

Quote:
3.5. Or even better, until we are given the chance to ‘listen’ to an expert from our side respond…
You've completely dismissed every expert that opposes your side, and accept "experts" who have no expertise in relevant fields and who cannot provide evidence that what they were working with came from the artifact in question.

Quote:
3.6. Juxtaposed pro and con articles in the newspaper make for a good step in the right direction – but only a small step. Unfortunately, such attempts inevitably leave all sorts of “loose ends,” and change very few minds.
So your idea of an effective debate is to limit the evidence to that of the side with the least evidence. Because THAT'S objective!

This is nothing more than a transparent attempt to make us look bad for pointing out the fact that our side has all kinds of evidence supporting it, while your side has nothing but wishful thinking and your unsubstantiated opinions and slanderous accusations. You are attempting to make it wrong to point out that you've been steamrolled in terms of weight of evidence. In other words, your idea of effective debate is that which allows you to pretend reality is what you want it to be.

Quote:
3.7. What we need to hear is dialogue between the two sides as they respond back and forth to each other’s questions and comments.
When, exactly, do you plan to start? Every one of your points in the shroud thread has been responded to, multiple times and in great detail. You've yet to respond to any of the criticisms in any coherent way.

Quote:
3.8. In other words, what we all need to hear is debate.
No. What we need here is a rational examination of the evidence. Your idea of debate is to have two sides who have already chosen their conclusions going back and forth. That's not effective in the slightest. What ACTUAL effective debate looks like is best demonstrated by the scientific method--you know, that thing that figured out the principles by which the computer you're posting with runs?

Quote:
3.9. But then, what we really need to hear is effective debate — and, effective debate hardly ever happens…
Certainly not when one party has already chosen their conclusion and attempts to dictate how the debate should occur, and even less frequently when part of their rules include "You can't present any more evidence than me".

You are dealing with educated people. We are not going to limit ourselves to your level of ignorance. It is completely irrational to demand that we do so. The solution to the fact that the shroud debate isn't going anywhere isn't for us to pretend that facts don't exist merely because you want us to; it's for you to educate yourself to the point where you can understand our evidence. This is particularly true since you've started openly accusing the scientists involved of fraud--you get NO benefit of the doubt at this point, and the fact that any of us are still treating you with even the slightest bit of courtesy and civility is a testament to our willingness to debate. You don't deserve either.
Dinwar 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 13th April 2013, 10:57 AM   #12
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post








Do ye have anything wi' less rat innit?
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle 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 13th April 2013, 11:00 AM   #13
Weak Kitten
Graduate Poster
 
Weak Kitten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,909
And we still haven't gotten to the question of what to do when one side is completely comfortable with flat out lying.

Actually, that is a very good question. As a viewer/reader watching a debate how do you keep an open mind if one side is caught in an outright lie? After all, just because one representative is a lair does not necessarily mean that their position is untrue. For example, some people have grossly overstated the impact of humans on global warming. That does not mean that global warming is untrue or that it is not impacted by human activity.

So, does anyone have advice on how to keep a skeptical mind open?
__________________
A quick reminder to all participants that although incomprehensibility is not against the Membership Agreement, incivility is. Please try and remember this, and keep your exchanges polite and respectful. -arthwollipot
Weak Kitten 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 13th April 2013, 11:03 AM   #14
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
[...]

You are dealing with educated people. We are not going to limit ourselves to your level of ignorance. It is completely irrational to demand that we do so. The solution to the fact that the shroud debate isn't going anywhere isn't for us to pretend that facts don't exist merely because you want us to; it's for you to educate yourself to the point where you can understand our evidence. This is particularly true since you've started openly accusing the scientists involved of fraud--you get NO benefit of the doubt at this point, and the fact that any of us are still treating you with even the slightest bit of courtesy and civility is a testament to our willingness to debate. You don't deserve either.

This bears repeating.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones 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 13th April 2013, 11:15 AM   #15
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I think that the following concept deserves a serious and friendly discussion on THIS website, but I don't think that any of the "general topics" here is appropriate. Any suggestions?
<snip for space>
- Thanks.

--- Jabba
Oh, Rich:

Seriously. In my humble opinion, this is not a "debate", nor can it be.

"Debate" (says the ex-coach of a southern state small-school competitive team) is a formal style of rhetorical competition, not intended to reach, or determine, the "truth" of an issue, but intended to determine, or adjudicate, the rule-defined rhetorical skills of the participants.

A "debate" has "judges" who determine the "winner"--and not one of the determinates of who "won" the "debate" has to do with the truth or falsity of the position assumed by, or forwarded by, the "winner". The very first thing a "debater" must do is to prepare for, and address the necessity of, arguing a principle, or an issue, with which she, personally, does not agree--because her agreement with, or emotional support of, the issue, is the least important characteristic of that issue. (As someone once said, "Truth is only one of your weapons in a debate--and by no means the most important one.")

You are engaging in an "argument"--a discussion wherein the truth of the issue is important to you. You want a piece of medieval linen to be the True ShroudTM, to the extent that no degree of evidence, no counter-example, no witness of experts, nor even any application of logic, is as important to you as your conviction that it is incompetence, or dishonesty, or vast collusion, that keeps anyone who accepts the evidence that the 3:1 medieval linen was correctly and competently dated from simply admitting that it "really is" the True ShroudTM.

Your position is not amenable to logic; not amenable to evidence, not amenable to reason--it is a deeply-held heart's desire to which you have demonstrated you will cling, and return, no matter what is said, shown, demonstrated, or logically presented.

Rules of debate are great for rhetorical contests--but a "debate" is no more a tool for discovering the truth of a proposition than a foil is a tool for discovering who would survive a swordfight.

Others on this thread have already commented on the "hear both sides" silliness, so I shall not...http://controversy.wearscience.com/

ETA: IMO, this ought to be put back in R&P...or even just merged with the "Shroud" thread.
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

Last edited by Slowvehicle; 13th April 2013 at 12:31 PM.
Slowvehicle 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 13th April 2013, 02:59 PM   #16
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,490
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Oh, Rich:

Seriously. In my humble opinion, this is not a "debate", nor can it be.

"Debate" (says the ex-coach of a southern state small-school competitive team) is a formal style of rhetorical competition, not intended to reach, or determine, the "truth" of an issue, but intended to determine, or adjudicate, the rule-defined rhetorical skills of the participants.

A "debate" has "judges" who determine the "winner"--and not one of the determinates of who "won" the "debate" has to do with the truth or falsity of the position assumed by, or forwarded by, the "winner". The very first thing a "debater" must do is to prepare for, and address the necessity of, arguing a principle, or an issue, with which she, personally, does not agree--because her agreement with, or emotional support of, the issue, is the least important characteristic of that issue. (As someone once said, "Truth is only one of your weapons in a debate--and by no means the most important one.")

You are engaging in an "argument"--a discussion wherein the truth of the issue is important to you. You want a piece of medieval linen to be the True ShroudTM, to the extent that no degree of evidence, no counter-example, no witness of experts, nor even any application of logic, is as important to you as your conviction that it is incompetence, or dishonesty, or vast collusion, that keeps anyone who accepts the evidence that the 3:1 medieval linen was correctly and competently dated from simply admitting that it "really is" the True ShroudTM.

Your position is not amenable to logic; not amenable to evidence, not amenable to reason--it is a deeply-held heart's desire to which you have demonstrated you will cling, and return, no matter what is said, shown, demonstrated, or logically presented.

Rules of debate are great for rhetorical contests--but a "debate" is no more a tool for discovering the truth of a proposition than a foil is a tool for discovering who would survive a swordfight.

Others on this thread have already commented on the "hear both sides" silliness, so I shall not...http://controversy.wearscience.com/

ETA: IMO, this ought to be put back in R&P...or even just merged with the "Shroud" thread.
^^^^^^ This.

I call shenanigans on the debate tactic for the reason given above: it's an arguing competition.

Both my sons were on state competition debating teams, and they would quite happily make stuff up that, on the face of it, sounded convincing during the debate, but had no factual basis. And they'd win the debate.

The Gish Gallop is an example of a debating technique, but has no place in establishing the veracity of a theory, or weighing the value of evidence.
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager 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 13th April 2013, 03:00 PM   #17
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
That's why I've emphasized that the shroud discussion is a scientific debate. Science refers to what it does as debate, but has its own rules.
Dinwar 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 13th April 2013, 03:25 PM   #18
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,490
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
That's why I've emphasized that the shroud discussion is a scientific debate. Science refers to what it does as debate, but has its own rules.
Yes. That element has been conspicuously absent from Jabba's critieria (recall the plea for a courtroom-style approach early on).
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager 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 13th April 2013, 03:27 PM   #19
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
^^^^^^ This.

I call shenanigans on the debate tactic for the reason given above: it's an arguing competition.

Both my sons were on state competition debating teams, and they would quite happily make stuff up that, on the face of it, sounded convincing during the debate, but had no factual basis. And they'd win the debate.

The Gish Gallop is an example of a debating technique, but has no place in establishing the veracity of a theory, or weighing the value of evidence.
I suppose this is why scientists have refused to debate creationists and shroudies in the past - it's a waste of time. The shroudies have nothing to lose, and science has nothing to gain.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones 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 13th April 2013, 03:54 PM   #20
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
I suppose this is why scientists have refused to debate creationists and shroudies in the past - it's a waste of time. The shroudies have nothing to lose, and science has nothing to gain.
Well, it's more that scientists aren't trained in formal debate. I've not met one that was on a debate team. We're trained to evaluate evidence, which, as has been pointed out, is something entirely different. Formal debates aren't part of science; science works by the presentation of evidence and arguments spanning years if not decades. So scientists don't debate Creationists or shroudies for the same reason we don't box heavyweight champions: it's not what we do period.
Dinwar 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 13th April 2013, 05:34 PM   #21
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 22,602
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
This is one of those things that sounds good, but in fact is terrible advice. We don't need to hear both sides--we need to examine the evidence. The sides are irrelevant. As soon as you start thinking about a scientific debate in terms of sides you create an "Us vs. Them" mentality that destroys your objectivity.
I've repeated this part as well. I think it is an excellent perspective.
SezMe 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 13th April 2013, 08:41 PM   #22
Pope130
Master Poster
 
Pope130's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,666
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
-
3.1. To effectively weigh the evidence, we (humans) need to ‘hear’ both sides of the story.

--- Jabba

To say that one should hear "both sides" of a question assumes that there are two, and only two, sides to each question. This is a very narrow minded view.
Pope130 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 13th April 2013, 09:47 PM   #23
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,490
Originally Posted by Pope130 View Post
To say that one should hear "both sides" of a question assumes that there are two, and only two, sides to each question. This is a very narrow minded view.
it also assumes that there is even another "side" on the same field...
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager 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 14th April 2013, 08:05 AM   #24
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,660
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Oh, Rich:

Seriously. In my humble opinion, this is not a "debate", nor can it be.

"Debate" (says the ex-coach of a southern state small-school competitive team) is a formal style of rhetorical competition, not intended to reach, or determine, the "truth" of an issue, but intended to determine, or adjudicate, the rule-defined rhetorical skills of the participants.

A "debate" has "judges" who determine the "winner"--and not one of the determinates of who "won" the "debate" has to do with the truth or falsity of the position assumed by, or forwarded by, the "winner". The very first thing a "debater" must do is to prepare for, and address the necessity of, arguing a principle, or an issue, with which she, personally, does not agree--because her agreement with, or emotional support of, the issue, is the least important characteristic of that issue. (As someone once said, "Truth is only one of your weapons in a debate--and by no means the most important one.")

You are engaging in an "argument"--a discussion wherein the truth of the issue is important to you. You want a piece of medieval linen to be the True ShroudTM, to the extent that no degree of evidence, no counter-example, no witness of experts, nor even any application of logic, is as important to you as your conviction that it is incompetence, or dishonesty, or vast collusion, that keeps anyone who accepts the evidence that the 3:1 medieval linen was correctly and competently dated from simply admitting that it "really is" the True ShroudTM.

Your position is not amenable to logic; not amenable to evidence, not amenable to reason--it is a deeply-held heart's desire to which you have demonstrated you will cling, and return, no matter what is said, shown, demonstrated, or logically presented.

Rules of debate are great for rhetorical contests--but a "debate" is no more a tool for discovering the truth of a proposition than a foil is a tool for discovering who would survive a swordfight.

Others on this thread have already commented on the "hear both sides" silliness, so I shall not...http://controversy.wearscience.com/

ETA: IMO, this ought to be put back in R&P...or even just merged with the "Shroud" thread.

This is a good point. There is, however, a more fundamental type of debate, which is what the school-competition debate is supposed to reflect: debate is used to influence decisions about a future course of action. To put it more simply, debate is a political tool used as part of a political process. Debate often centers on a motion or proposition; that is, a statement about a course of action that is within a governing body's power, that may or may not be put into effect.

All the "debate" in the world about whether humans evolved or were created in a day would not influence whether or not humans actually evolved or were created in a day. One way or the other, that's an inalterable historical fact. We might, however, debate about whether Intelligent Design theory should be taught in public schools, because what we do in our public schools in the future is something we get to decide. In the course of that debate, we might end up arguing about whether evolution is valid, because that argument contributes to the debate. But calling the whole process "a debate about evolution" is a somewhat inaccurate (sometimes lazy, sometimes useful) shorthand.

Likewise, we cannot really debate about whether or not the Shroud of Turin is a medieval forgery or a miraculous relic of God's incarnation in human form. Whatever it actually is is an inalterable historical fact.

In order to turn that argument into a debate, Jabba could come up with a proposition regarding a future course of action for which the Shroud's nature is a relevant factor. (This was my response to every Truther who suggested I participate in a debate, and no one ever came forward with a suitable proposition.) I doubt that will happen.

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...

Last edited by Myriad; 14th April 2013 at 08:07 AM.
Myriad 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 14th April 2013, 02:41 PM   #25
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,785
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
Yeah.

Quit while you're ahead.
Not possible.
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery 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 14th April 2013, 03:41 PM   #26
Manopolus
Metaphorical Anomaly
 
Manopolus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brownbackistan
Posts: 7,543
The absolute best sort of debate is one where the participants know the rules well enough to break them properly.

Those that merely follow the rules put the audience to sleep.

Last edited by Manopolus; 14th April 2013 at 03:43 PM.
Manopolus 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 14th April 2013, 07:41 PM   #27
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
Yeah.

Quit while you're ahead.
Assumes facts not in evidence...
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle 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 April 2013, 12:41 AM   #28
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
...This is one of those things that sounds good, but in fact is terrible advice. We don't need to hear both sides--we need to examine the evidence. The sides are irrelevant. As soon as you start thinking about a scientific debate in terms of sides you create an "Us vs. Them" mentality that destroys your objectivity. ...
This.
Slowvehicle and Myriad said it better, though


Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
..."Debate" (says the ex-coach of a southern state small-school competitive team) is a formal style of rhetorical competition, not intended to reach, or determine, the "truth" of an issue, but intended to determine, or adjudicate, the rule-defined rhetorical skills of the participants. ...
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
... There is, however, a more fundamental type of debate, which is what the school-competition debate is supposed to reflect: debate is used to influence decisions about a future course of action. To put it more simply, debate is a political tool used as part of a political process. Debate often centers on a motion or proposition; that is, a statement about a course of action that is within a governing body's power, that may or may not be put into effect.

All the "debate" in the world about whether humans evolved or were created in a day would not influence whether or not humans actually evolved or were created in a day. One way or the other, that's an inalterable historical fact. We might, however, debate about whether Intelligent Design theory should be taught in public schools, because what we do in our public schools in the future is something we get to decide. In the course of that debate, we might end up arguing about whether evolution is valid, because that argument contributes to the debate. But calling the whole process "a debate about evolution" is a somewhat inaccurate (sometimes lazy, sometimes useful) shorthand. ..
I'd like to think the OP takes these points into account.
__________________
How many zeros? Jabba
pakeha 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 19th April 2013, 11:47 PM   #29
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,868
Sometimes, the dog returneth not to his vomit
__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell
Filippo Lippi 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 20th April 2013, 01:44 AM   #30
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 12,677
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
The same as a two persons wanting to hold two theory : flat earth and round earth. You would not even bother with the falt earther for many many obvious scientific reason.
Not necessarily so. I'm not saying that s/he would but if a "flat earther" had a compelling argument in favour of the flat earth theory then it might be worth listening to if only to learn how to deal with such reasoning that could lead to a false conclusion.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 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 20th April 2013, 10:21 AM   #31
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
 
shemp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: People's Democratic Republic of Planet X
Posts: 27,026
Here's a video with some important tips:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
"Shemp, you are the one fixed point in an ever-changing universe." - Beady

"I don't want to live in a world without shemp." - Quarky

Noel Gallagher isn't fit to lick the **** off the bottom of the shoes of Howard Devoto
shemp 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 20th April 2013, 10:23 AM   #32
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 42,513
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I think that the following concept deserves a serious and friendly discussion on THIS website, but I don't think that any of the "general topics" here is appropriate. Any suggestions?

- Something taken from my website at http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=86.



3-4. Why & Why Not



3. Why Debate?

3.1. To effectively weigh the evidence, we (humans) need to ‘hear’ both sides of the story.

3.2. In addition, we need to hear each side from the side itself – not both sides as represented by just one of the sides…

3.3. But then, once we humans lean towards a particular side, listening to the other side becomes rather painful — so mostly, we avoid doing it…

3.4. But that’s true until we can do more than listen – until we are given the chance to respond to the other side’s “foolishness”…

3.5. Or even better, until we are given the chance to ‘listen’ to an expert from our side respond…

3.6. Juxtaposed pro and con articles in the newspaper make for a good step in the right direction – but only a small step. Unfortunately, such attempts inevitably leave all sorts of “loose ends,” and change very few minds.

3.7. What we need to hear is dialogue between the two sides as they respond back and forth to each other’s questions and comments.

3.8. In other words, what we all need to hear is debate.

3.9. But then, what we really need to hear is effective debate — and, effective debate hardly ever happens…



- Thanks.

--- Jabba
Indeed.

Hence our innate tendency to grab the popcorn as soon as we witness a good debate about to start.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is online now   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 17th January 2014, 01:26 PM   #33
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: High above Indianapolis
Posts: 1,835
Bump for Jabba to remember that some eight months ago, he had a plan to discuss an idea he has about effective debate.

Some few thought this thread might have been designed with alterior clickety-click motives.

My favorite pharaoh (may he post forever) thought this endeavour would be a waste of time.

I was hoping for an explanation of what Jabba's method is because it's certainly not apparent to me.
__________________
Congratulations, you have successfully failed to model something that you assert "isn't noticeable". -The Man

Science is not hopelessly hobbled just because it knows the difference between fact and imagination. -JayUtah
HighRiser 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 17th January 2014, 02:40 PM   #34
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 23,335
Actually effective debate, eh? Actually effective debate.

I'd start by keeping the unnecessary verbiage down to a minimum, and dumping redundancies, such as "Actually", which contributes nothing to the phrase.

Debate doesn't look to be the OP's strong point. Proclaiming to the world, but then failing to respond to the responses, looks more like lecturing or preaching than debating. Actually.
MikeG 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 17th January 2014, 02:54 PM   #35
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 12,480
Mulling this idea over, I came up with something truly revolutionary. I'd like to suggest it to Jabba, in the hope that he utilises in it in next thread (or, perhaps, in his current thread in SMMT).

Be warned, it's quite complicated and shouldn't be attempted lightly. It requires a little bit of preparation and a willingness to do some work.

Are you ready?

Jabba, are you reading this carefully?


Are you sure you can open your mind to this idea?

It's this.

Post evidence for your ideas.

Whoa, just typing that gave me chills. But I know that if you utilise this one important strategy, it will result in effective debate.
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader
Agatha 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 17th January 2014, 03:14 PM   #36
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 16,164
Jabba, I have not read the Shroud thread. So, I will simply ask, can by C14 dating of the shroud place it in the first three decades of the Common Era? Can you place it in Jerusalem? Pollen analysis might be a good option for that but not the only one. If the answer to these questions is no, then there is nothing to discuss. There is no other side to argue and no debate technique that will fix that.
Craig4 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 19th January 2014, 12:19 PM   #37
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Actually effective debate, eh? Actually effective debate.
I wonder if it's a credible reliable awesome effective debate.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... 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 19th January 2014, 12:20 PM   #38
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
3.7. What we need to hear is dialogue between the two sides as they respond back and forth to each other’s questions and comments.

3.8. In other words, what we all need to hear is debate.
So... what we already have here. Ok.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... 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 19th January 2014, 12:32 PM   #39
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
Mulling this idea over, I came up with something truly revolutionary. I'd like to suggest it to Jabba, in the hope that he utilises in it in next thread (or, perhaps, in his current thread in SMMT).

Be warned, it's quite complicated and shouldn't be attempted lightly. It requires a little bit of preparation and a willingness to do some work.

Are you ready?

Jabba, are you reading this carefully?


Are you sure you can open your mind to this idea?

It's this.

Post evidence for your ideas.

Whoa, just typing that gave me chills. But I know that if you utilise this one important strategy, it will result in effective debate.
Radical.
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle 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 20th January 2014, 03:20 AM   #40
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 12,480
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Radical.
Scary, innit?
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader
Agatha 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 06:50 AM.
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.