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 20th January 2014, 03:25 AM   #41
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,092
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
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.

Also, "essentially".
__________________
"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 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 20th January 2014, 04:50 AM   #42
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,845
Remember, Jabba's attempt to round up a posse of shroudies to tackle the bad sceptics was a miserable failure.
__________________
"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 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 20th January 2014, 04:56 AM   #43
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla Sama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
Anybody remember that Bugs Bunny/Yosemite Sam cartoon where they're hurling the same cannon ball back and forth and back and forth and back and forth and back and forth and back and forth and back and forth and back and forth and back and forth and...
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse.
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid.
Gawdzilla Sama 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, 08:52 AM   #44
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,674
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
Scary, innit?


What's scary is that there are now at least four threads being used to explain and/or facilitate Jabba's non-production of evidence.
__________________


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 20th January 2014, 09:27 PM   #45
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
What's scary is that there are now at least four threads being used to explain and/or facilitate Jabba's non-production of evidence.
Mighty One (may you post forever!):

This humble supplicant admits that his limited abilities have proved inadequate to keep up with the blistering pace of plangent repartee. Might Your August Presence deign to sum up the wealth of new, unique, insightful information engendered by today's combatants, for us faint-but-pursuing also-rans?

I mean, a whole bunch got posted...right?
__________________
"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 21st January 2014, 02:12 AM   #46
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,674
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Mighty One (may you post forever!):

This humble supplicant admits that his limited abilities have proved inadequate to keep up with the blistering pace of plangent repartee. Might Your August Presence deign to sum up the wealth of new, unique, insightful information engendered by today's combatants, for us faint-but-pursuing also-rans?

I mean, a whole bunch got posted...right?


The whole thing is a disgrace. Unfortunately I'm using a small, portable messaging stele at the moment and it's unsuitable for the key-smashing rant that I'm going to have about this ridiculous situation when I get back to the Royal Palace.
__________________


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 21st January 2014, 05:56 AM   #47
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by Filippo Lippi View Post
Remember, Jabba's attempt to round up a posse of shroudies to tackle the bad sceptics was a miserable failure.
Good times!
And the one Shroudie he found came to the conclusion the TS was a medieval artefact, correct me if I'm wrong.
__________________
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 21st January 2014, 06:03 AM   #48
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
The whole thing is a disgrace. Unfortunately I'm using a small, portable messaging stele at the moment and it's unsuitable for the key-smashing rant that I'm going to have about this ridiculous situation when I get back to the Royal Palace.
__________________
"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 21st January 2014, 08:42 AM   #49
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,674
1. Talk about a fluid situation.
1.1 I can't even find half the bloody threads that I was looking at while I was down the Pub.
1.1.1 Which might be a good thing.
1.1.2. Also, a recent foray into FM (now in AAH) reveals that Jabba can't find his place either.
1.1.3 Although that's nothing novel.
2. I might just wait until things settle down a bit.
2.1.6.3.9.2.6.1.1.2.1 And then get started on a flow chart of the whole sorry tale.
7. Can't go wrong with a decent flowchart, I reckon.
3. And lists.
3.1 We definitely need more lists.
__________________


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 21st January 2014, 09:03 AM   #50
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
1. Talk about a fluid situation.
1.1 I can't even find half the bloody threads that I was looking at while I was down the Pub.
1.1.1 Which might be a good thing.
1.1.2. Also, a recent foray into FM (now in AAH) reveals that Jabba can't find his place either.
1.1.3 Although that's nothing novel.
2. I might just wait until things settle down a bit.
2.1.6.3.9.2.6.1.1.2.1 And then get started on a flow chart of the whole sorry tale.
7. Can't go wrong with a decent flowchart, I reckon.
3. And lists.
3.1 We definitely need more lists.

I know, right? It's hard to keep track of where to be snarky...and there is no new action on the actual 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
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 21st January 2014, 09:07 AM   #51
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,674



__________________


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 21st January 2014, 09:47 AM   #52
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,837
I'm convinced. This is actually a much better form 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 21st January 2014, 10:34 AM   #53
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
I Ratant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
This bears repeating.
.
Applies to the no-planers also.
I Ratant 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 21st January 2014, 10:36 AM   #54
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
I Ratant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
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.
.
A true scientist in a debate would send all those involved into catalepsy, with his "core dump" of -everything- he knows on the subject, and the sidebars he'd bring up!
I Ratant 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 21st January 2014, 10:37 PM   #55
Audible Click
The gap in the plot
 
Audible Click's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: BFE
Posts: 3,634
Juicing the pig...four threads of pig juicing. Why?
__________________
"Thank you, darling heart.
Love you." Baba
Australasian Skeptics Forum
Audible Click 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 21st January 2014, 11:08 PM   #56
Antiquehunter
Degenerate Gambler
 
Antiquehunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,088
__________________
"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people in the world?" -Stephen Fry, 2006
Antiquehunter 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 22nd January 2014, 06:15 AM   #57
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,674
Originally Posted by Audible Click View Post
Juicing the pig...four threads of pig juicing. Why?
Originally Posted by Antiquehunter View Post



Love you, AC.

Antiquehunter is a sicko, but I still love you.

__________________


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 22nd January 2014, 11:27 AM   #58
Audible Click
The gap in the plot
 
Audible Click's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: BFE
Posts: 3,634
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
Love you, AC.

Antiquehunter is a sicko, but I still love you.

You silver tongued devil.

__________________
"Thank you, darling heart.
Love you." Baba
Australasian Skeptics Forum
Audible Click 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 22nd January 2014, 08:42 PM   #59
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14,352
If Jabba's example of effective debate is the new thread with LL, than I am even more convinced that Jabba is wrong.
Giordano 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 28th January 2014, 10:07 AM   #60
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,600
- For now, I'll try (again) to put us all on the same page.

- As often mentioned in other threads, I had two reasons for coming to the Randi forum: 1) I wanted to air my belief that the Shroud of Turin is probably authentic -- in front of well-educated skeptics. While I hope to effectively defend my belief against such educated skeptics, I really don't want to believe something that isn't true. No kidding. And, 2) I also wanted to work on my theoretical scheme for effective debate.
- Clearly, you guys think that my scheme is a joke, but I still think that we humans desperately need to develop such a thing, and that my scheme is a very good beginning. I also believe that the Randi forum could provide a "facility" for effective debate in general, and become a kind of Google or Wikipedia for debate regarding all our long standing controversies -- personal, local, national, international, whatever.
- We voters, citizens, parents, humans need to be hearing the whole story regarding an enormous number of serious issues -- and not just one side of it. For doing that, we need an adversarial approach. So far, our adversarial approaches just aren't making it.

- This will take awhile, but per usual, I'll be back.

Mod WarningThis post (and the first reply, below) was moved from FM where it was erroneously posted.
Do not persist in posting in the wrong thread for the topic at hand.
Posted By:zooterkin
__________________
"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 č probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor

Last edited by zooterkin; 28th January 2014 at 11:23 AM.
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 28th January 2014, 10:27 AM   #61
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by Jabba
Clearly, you guys think that my scheme is a joke,
Only because it's unworkable, relies upon the fallacy of false equivalency, ignores the fact that numerous effective debate stratigies are currently used evey day, ignores the fact that not all issues have two sides, and is wildly inappropriate for numerous venues.

Quote:
...but I still think that we humans desperately need to develop such a thing, and that my scheme is a very good beginning.
Funny how it failed in less than a page.

Quote:
I also believe that the Randi forum could provide a "facility" for effective debate in general, and become a kind of Google or Wikipedia for debate regarding all our long standing controversies
First, no internet forum is going to gain such significance. Second, you'd have to understand what are genuine controversies (more on that in a moment).

Quote:
- We voters, citizens, parents, humans need to be hearing the whole story regarding an enormous number of serious issues
I have explained to you before that your attempts to shoehorn scientific discussions into political and legal frameworks are nothing short of intellectually dishonest. There already is an effective debate style for science: it's called publication. The efficacy of that debate style is all around us, and cannot be rationally denied. To demand we abandon it for some half-baked idea on an internet forum is sheer lunacy. It does, however, reveal a hidden agenda on your part.

Quote:
...and not just one side of it.
And here's the agenda, clear as day. The whole issue is that people don't take your unevidenced and irrational pet hypotheses as seriously as they take science. Your method of debate is essentially nothing more than an attempt to ensure that all ideas, regardless of validity, are presented as equally valid--then let the audience decide the truth. Unfortunately for you, not all ideas are equally valid. The notion, for example, that someone, somewhere, somehow engaged in a type of fabric repair that is completely unknown in any other textile anywhere in the world, and that they did this in an unimportant portion of a cloth while leaving the vital portions to be repaired via normal techniques, is certainly not on an equal footing with the notion that such a technique--which is not described, nor is any evidence provided other than the complete absence of any data suggesting any patching--was not used. Any debate style that presumes that unevidenced hypotheses are fully equal with hypotheses with copious amounts of evidence is clearly flawed--and intentionally so. No intellectually honest researcher could propose such a scheme, because one of the cournerstones of intellectual honesty is refusing to say more than your data can support.

Secondly, you are attempting to control the debate unilaterally. In practice, what your debate style would be is you making all kinds of spurious and nonsensical claims (such as the above), while we refute them. It is, in effect, an attempt to formallize the Gish Gallop as the official debate method.

It's clear that you have encountered the legal system in the past in some fashion (my guess? Law & Order reruns). It's equally clear that you were impressed by it. However, what you've forgotten is that the legal system is not designed to find the truth. It was designed to administer justice relatively quickly and efficiently (though that part is breaking down, as I understand it). Its methods are not compatable with scientific debate, 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 28th January 2014, 10:47 AM   #62
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14,352
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- For now, I'll try (again) to put us all on the same page.

- As often mentioned in other threads, I had two reasons for coming to the Randi forum: 1) I wanted to air my belief that the Shroud of Turin is probably authentic -- in front of well-educated skeptics. While I hope to effectively defend my belief against such educated skeptics, I really don't want to believe something that isn't true. No kidding.

And yet I seem to remember that that no evidence would persuade you to change your belief.

And, 2) I also wanted to work on my theoretical scheme for effective debate.
- Clearly, you guys think that my scheme is a joke, but I still think that we humans desperately need to develop such a thing, and that my scheme is a very good beginning.

Actually you proved in this very Forum that it didn't work.

I also believe that the Randi forum could provide a "facility" for effective debate in general, and become a kind of Google or Wikipedia for debate regarding all our long standing controversies -- personal, local, national, international, whatever.

Your scheme for "effective debate" didn't work when tried.

- We voters, citizens, parents, humans need to be hearing the whole story regarding an enormous number of serious issues -- and not just one side of it.

Even if the one side is the correct and true side? That is what disturbs you! An effective debate by your criteria is a debate between "The moon is made of green cheese" and "The moon is not made of green cheese" with both sides given equal opportunity to put forward their position and equal respect. One side is just wrong, and the "debate" is a waste of time.


- This will take awhile, but per usual, I'll be back.

No need to hurry...
Please see above.

Last edited by Giordano; 28th January 2014 at 10:48 AM.
Giordano 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 28th January 2014, 11:08 AM   #63
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- - Clearly, you guys think that my scheme is a joke,[...]
Sort of like a joke, but not funny.
__________________
"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 29th January 2014, 06:16 AM   #64
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,600
- I'm going to drop this issue for now -- my eyes continue to be bigger than my stomach. Hopefully, I will eventually get back to it, but for now, I'm thinkin, one thread at a time.
__________________
"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 č 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 29th January 2014, 09:43 AM   #65
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 19,479
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Clearly, you guys think that my scheme is a joke[...]
You evidently have no faith in it, either. The exact conditions you specified were set up. And, within 6 days, you'd abandoned your own form of debate in favour of posting in the non-moderated threads, and replying to more than one poster.

Your experiment was tried. You quit, because it was ineffective. What else is there to try?

Quote:
Mod WarningThis post (and the first reply, below) was moved from FM where it was erroneously posted.
Do not persist in posting in the wrong thread for the topic at hand.
Posted By:zooterkin
Man, you had several posters, including me, tell you that if you posted this in "Forum Management" that you'd get another yellow card. So what did you do?

Jabba, you really, really need to learn to listen to other people sometimes.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 December 2017, 07:53 AM   #66
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,600
Effective Public Debate

- In my opinion
1. Current public debate is almost totally ineffective and is seriously problematic.
2. But then, we desperately need public debate – effective public debate – especially, these days.
3. The world is becoming more and more polarized. We're sliding down both sides of multiple hills.
4. IOW, we humans seriously need a serious ability to communicate -- and negotiate -- with those with whom we disagree.

5. But then, most of the specific problems in public debate seem obvious.
6. As are potential solutions -- especially with the Internet at our fingertips.
7. Yet, no one seems to be trying to solve this problem.
8. It's as if we don’t think we have a serious problem here.
9. Or, we've simply decided that this particular problem cannot be solved -- or even, significantly improved upon.
10. I have, at least the beginnings of, a solution.
__________________
"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 č probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor

Last edited by Jabba; 14th December 2017 at 07:54 AM.
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 14th December 2017, 07:57 AM   #67
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
You've tried to sell this idea before, and you couldn't even live-up to your own rules.

Your 'debate' style we've seen here makes you probably the least qualified person to criticize.
__________________
"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 14th December 2017, 07:58 AM   #68
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,600
- Does anyone here know of relevant research directed towards addressing this issue? I haven’t been able to find any.
- I've been debating on this forum for almost 6 years, and have learned a lot about possible weaknesses in my different positions, but haven't convinced anyone of anything except of how dumb, dishonest and rude I am. And, how my theory of effective debate doesn’t even begin to work.
- I blame that on our rules of engagement – or at least, how they’re interpreted.
- One way or the other, they are designed for having fun – they are not designed for seriously seeking the truth, or solving serious problems.
- Maybe, we could devote a section of this forum for the purpose of developing actually effective public 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 č 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 14th December 2017, 08:00 AM   #69
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Do your own homework.

ETA: Your theory of effective debate doesn't even begin to work. You can't even stick to it.
__________________
"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 14th December 2017, 08:08 AM   #70
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 12,221
Hellbound 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 December 2017, 08:12 AM   #71
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,600
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
You've tried to sell this idea before, and you couldn't even live-up to your own rules.

Your 'debate' style we've seen here makes you probably the least qualified person to criticize.
John,
– The basic problem is that once we humans slip into debate, our reflexes are all wrong for trying to find the truth. That’s how we humans are. Once into a debate, we automatically slip into a fight/flight mode and become oblivious to any truth- seeking urge we might previously have had, and seek only to win – or at least, to avoid losing.
– But note that two things happen here. We slip into a fight/flight mode; but also, we lose all sight of our seek-the-truth mode. It isn’t’ like the two objectives both have our attention, just that one of them is stronger — it’s like one of them slips entirely below our radar… We “zone out.”
– It’s like we have two ‘background objectives’ possible here: “Seek the truth,” or “Win.” But, importantly, these will not occupy the same space, they will not share control. Once the ‘winning’ objective rears its ugly head, we simply become oblivious to our previous desire to seek the truth. We zone out. We may ‘wake up’ every once in awhile — only to zone out again, the next time we’re challenged…
– It’s like falling asleep in class when we’re especially sleepy. We wake up and think, “Wow, I’d better not do that again.” But, the next thing we know, we’re waking up again…
– It’s like the picture they showed us in Psychology 101 – according to how you look at it, it was either an ugly old witch, or a beautiful young woman. But the main point was that you couldn’t see it both ways at the same time – it was either one way or the other. The same dynamic seems to be working in regards to these two objectives. Our ‘wheelhouse’ has only enough room for one Captain.
– I probably sound like a broken record at this point, but “zoning out” is an important aspect of human nature that, as far as I can tell, has never been addressed by science. Since we’re oblivious to what we’re doing while we’re doing it, we never correct ourselves. We might “wake up” and start to correct ourselves, but quickly “fall asleep” again and start doing it all over again — oblivious to what we just did…
– For 50,000 years (or maybe, about 6000?) now, we’ve had the theoretical “ability” to argue in good faith – to argue honestly, objectively and fairly — but, our reflexes still won’t let us. Talk about your Rip Van Winkles!

– That, I claim, is our general problem.
– But then, I suggest that what we need do in order to begin correcting our problem is to identify our specific problematic behaviors.

– So, once into a debate, we humans revert to animalistic form, slip into a fight/flight mode and start doing everything we can to win.
– More specifically, we
1. Start doing everything we can to undermine effective presentation of evidence by the other side, and to overstate our own case. And,
2. Start placing a supreme premium upon quick answers.

– More specifically yet, in regard to #1, we
1.1. Insult our opponents (We have numerous ways of doing this – both overtly and covertly.)
1.2. Refuse to yield the floor.
1.3. Refuse to answer our opponents questions.
1.4. Pretend to answer their questions while ‘dancing around them’ instead.
1.5. State opinion as fact.
1.6. Raise our voices.
1.7. Grasp at straws (while pretending they’re hawsers). And,
1.8. Lie.

– More specifically yet, in regard to #2. Because of this new set, we don’t have time to
2.1. Understand our opponent’s argument.
2.2. Really understand our own argument.
2.3. Think twice.
2.4. Step back from the canvas.
2.5. Look before we leap.
2.6. Say what we mean.
2.7. Keep from going off on tangents defending things we didn’t mean.
2.8. Realize we’re wrong.
2.9. Admit we’re wrong.
2.10. Cool off.
2.11. Apologize.
__________________
"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 č probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor

Last edited by Jabba; 14th December 2017 at 08:15 AM.
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 14th December 2017, 08:18 AM   #72
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- In my opinion
1. Current public debate is almost totally ineffective and is seriously problematic.
Only when one side of the debate or more refuses to actually listen and reason. Which is the problem in all your threads: you're not intested in actual debate, never mind effective debate. Bogging down the conversation is your goal.
__________________
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 14th December 2017, 08:21 AM   #73
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: 26,579
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
10. I have, at least the beginnings of, a solution.
As you yourself say, you've been evaluating this solution for several years here on the forum; and, as you yourself say, the results of your evaluation have been entirely negative. I think most of us would suggest that six years of unremitting failure is not indicative of a fundamentally sound approach.

The problem, in fact, is that your theory of effective debate consists of stating a set of premises that embody your desired conclusion, demanding that everyone else accept these premises before continuing, claiming that any criticism of them arises from the fact that others have misinterpreted your position, replacing some of the terminology in your original statement with synonyms, then repeating the process. It is in effect a highly efficient way of producing the exact results you claim to be trying to avoid.

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 14th December 2017, 08:22 AM   #74
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
John,
– The basic problem is that once we humans slip into debate, our reflexes are all wrong for trying to find the truth. That’s how we humans are. Once into a debate, we automatically slip into a fight/flight mode and become oblivious to any truth- seeking urge we might previously have had, and seek only to win – or at least, to avoid losing.
– But note that two things happen here. We slip into a fight/flight mode; but also, we lose all sight of our seek-the-truth mode. It isn’t’ like the two objectives both have our attention, just that one of them is stronger — it’s like one of them slips entirely below our radar… We “zone out.”
– It’s like we have two ‘background objectives’ possible here: “Seek the truth,” or “Win.” But, importantly, these will not occupy the same space, they will not share control. Once the ‘winning’ objective rears its ugly head, we simply become oblivious to our previous desire to seek the truth. We zone out. We may ‘wake up’ every once in awhile — only to zone out again, the next time we’re challenged…
– It’s like falling asleep in class when we’re especially sleepy. We wake up and think, “Wow, I’d better not do that again.” But, the next thing we know, we’re waking up again…
– It’s like the picture they showed us in Psychology 101 – according to how you look at it, it was either an ugly old witch, or a beautiful young woman. But the main point was that you couldn’t see it both ways at the same time – it was either one way or the other. The same dynamic seems to be working in regards to these two objectives. Our ‘wheelhouse’ has only enough room for one Captain.
– I probably sound like a broken record at this point, but “zoning out” is an important aspect of human nature that, as far as I can tell, has never been addressed by science. Since we’re oblivious to what we’re doing while we’re doing it, we never correct ourselves. We might “wake up” and start to correct ourselves, but quickly “fall asleep” again and start doing it all over again — oblivious to what we just did…
– For 50,000 years (or maybe, about 6000?) now, we’ve had the theoretical “ability” to argue in good faith – to argue honestly, objectively and fairly — but, our reflexes still won’t let us. Talk about your Rip Van Winkles!

– That, I claim, is our general problem.
– But then, I suggest that what we need do in order to begin correcting our problem is to identify our specific problematic behaviors.

– So, once into a debate, we humans revert to animalistic form, slip into a fight/flight mode and start doing everything we can to win.
– More specifically, we
1. Start doing everything we can to undermine effective presentation of evidence by the other side, and to overstate our own case. And,
2. Start placing a supreme premium upon quick answers.

– More specifically yet, in regard to #1, we
1.1. Insult our opponents (We have numerous ways of doing this – both overtly and covertly.)
1.2. Refuse to yield the floor.
1.3. Refuse to answer our opponents questions.
1.4. Pretend to answer their questions while ‘dancing around them’ instead.
1.5. State opinion as fact.
1.6. Raise our voices.
1.7. Grasp at straws (while pretending they’re hawsers). And,
1.8. Lie.

– More specifically yet, in regard to #2. Because of this new set, we don’t have time to
2.1. Understand our opponent’s argument.
2.2. Really understand our own argument.
2.3. Think twice.
2.4. Step back from the canvas.
2.5. Look before we leap.
2.6. Say what we mean.
2.7. Keep from going off on tangents defending things we didn’t mean.
2.8. Realize we’re wrong.
2.9. Admit we’re wrong.
2.10. Cool off.
2.11. Apologize.



We've had this discussion before, and you crashed and burned spectacularly. I'm gonna ask a mod to merge this thread with the other, earlier debacle if I can find it.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave

Last edited by John Jones; 14th December 2017 at 08:24 AM.
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 14th December 2017, 08:32 AM   #75
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14,352
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
[/spoiler]

We've had this discussion before, and you crashed and burned spectacularly. I'm gonna ask a mod to merge this thread with the other, earlier debacle if I can find it.
Seconded! Damn- squared or cubed!

In addition to occasionally weaving these "concepts" into his immortal (and messiah) threads Jabba initiated exactly this same debate several years ago as a separate thread. And he was indulged exactly in the manner he requested. It got nowhere and he himself very quickly abandoned the discussion.

Mods- please, please just merge this with the prior thread. The immortality thread is a bad enough example of years of a discussion going nowhere. And the prior iteration of this argument, which rapidly reached a similar non-existent destination, lurks somewhere in the Forum archives. Not another one. Please?

Last edited by Giordano; 14th December 2017 at 08:36 AM.
Giordano 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 December 2017, 08:35 AM   #76
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: 26,579
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
The basic problem is that once we humans slip into debate, our reflexes are all wrong for trying to find the truth.
That's why debate is not generally used as an effective mechanism for determining truth. It's a mechanism for deciding on courses of action - necessarily so, because only by convincing others that an action is desirable can one actually induce them to carry it out - but only among pseudoscientists is it believed to be an effective means of determining actual truth. We all see conspiracy theorists demanding a one-to-one debate with an expert for "the other side" on what happened on 9/11, or creationists wanting to debate one-to-one with... I'd like to say evolutionists, but what I actually mean is people who aren't full of ****. It's not a means of determining truth; it's a means of sidestepping scientific consensus to give the impression of a false equivalence between carefully developed and researched knowledge, and nonsense. As we've seen in your immortal immortality thread, that's exactly how you're trying to use it - as a way to force your opinions on others and try to demand that they give in to you on every point before you even state it, because you can't bear to be wrong. Your idea of consensus is "Everybody agree with everything I say," and when you fail to achieve this goal you complain that it's because we're not debating properly. And that's why everyone sees you as rude and dishonest and your debating style as worthless - because these things are in fact objectively true.

If you honestly want to develop an approach to debate that will be more effective, stop trying to invent one that will convince everybody else to agree with you. Look at it the other way round; start from figuring out what will convince you to change your mind to agree with somebody else. If your effective debating approach can't achieve that, why would you expect anyone else to care about it?

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 14th December 2017, 08:39 AM   #77
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14,352
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
John,
– The basic problem is that once we humans slip into debate, our reflexes are all wrong for trying to find the truth. That’s how we humans are. Once into a debate, we automatically slip into a fight/flight mode and become oblivious to any truth- seeking urge we might previously have had, and seek only to win – or at least, to avoid losing.
– But note that two things happen here. We slip into a fight/flight mode; but also, we lose all sight of our seek-the-truth mode. It isn’t’ like the two objectives both have our attention, just that one of them is stronger — it’s like one of them slips entirely below our radar… We “zone out.”
– It’s like we have two ‘background objectives’ possible here: “Seek the truth,” or “Win.” But, importantly, these will not occupy the same space, they will not share control. Once the ‘winning’ objective rears its ugly head, we simply become oblivious to our previous desire to seek the truth. We zone out. We may ‘wake up’ every once in awhile — only to zone out again, the next time we’re challenged…
– It’s like falling asleep in class when we’re especially sleepy. We wake up and think, “Wow, I’d better not do that again.” But, the next thing we know, we’re waking up again…
– It’s like the picture they showed us in Psychology 101 – according to how you look at it, it was either an ugly old witch, or a beautiful young woman. But the main point was that you couldn’t see it both ways at the same time – it was either one way or the other. The same dynamic seems to be working in regards to these two objectives. Our ‘wheelhouse’ has only enough room for one Captain.
– I probably sound like a broken record at this point, but “zoning out” is an important aspect of human nature that, as far as I can tell, has never been addressed by science. Since we’re oblivious to what we’re doing while we’re doing it, we never correct ourselves. We might “wake up” and start to correct ourselves, but quickly “fall asleep” again and start doing it all over again — oblivious to what we just did…
– For 50,000 years (or maybe, about 6000?) now, we’ve had the theoretical “ability” to argue in good faith – to argue honestly, objectively and fairly — but, our reflexes still won’t let us. Talk about your Rip Van Winkles!

– That, I claim, is our general problem.
– But then, I suggest that what we need do in order to begin correcting our problem is to identify our specific problematic behaviors.

– So, once into a debate, we humans revert to animalistic form, slip into a fight/flight mode and start doing everything we can to win.
– More specifically, we
1. Start doing everything we can to undermine effective presentation of evidence by the other side, and to overstate our own case. And,
2. Start placing a supreme premium upon quick answers.

– More specifically yet, in regard to #1, we
1.1. Insult our opponents (We have numerous ways of doing this – both overtly and covertly.)
1.2. Refuse to yield the floor.
1.3. Refuse to answer our opponents questions.
1.4. Pretend to answer their questions while ‘dancing around them’ instead.
1.5. State opinion as fact.
1.6. Raise our voices.
1.7. Grasp at straws (while pretending they’re hawsers). And,
1.8. Lie.

– More specifically yet, in regard to #2. Because of this new set, we don’t have time to
2.1. Understand our opponent’s argument.
2.2. Really understand our own argument.
2.3. Think twice.
2.4. Step back from the canvas.
2.5. Look before we leap.
2.6. Say what we mean.
2.7. Keep from going off on tangents defending things we didn’t mean.
2.8. Realize we’re wrong.
2.9. Admit we’re wrong.
2.10. Cool off.
2.11. Apologize.
This is copied verbatim from the Messiah or Not website, which I believe is Jabba's, correct?. This is just spamming the Forum.
Giordano 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 December 2017, 09:03 AM   #78
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
This is copied verbatim from the Messiah or Not website, which I believe is Jabba's, correct?. This is just spamming the Forum.
Yes, that's his. This is a Rule 4 violation apparently as well.
__________________
"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 14th December 2017, 09:04 AM   #79
Loss Leader
Do you want to date my Avatar?
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,160
Let's just add this to the list of things Jabba would rather be doing than learning about Buddhist/Hindu reincarnation beliefs.


Jabba - Where does "Avoiding Any Debate Whatsoever" go in your tree of effectiveness?
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader 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 December 2017, 09:06 AM   #80
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Thank you!
__________________
"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
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 12:35 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.