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 26th April 2018, 06:24 AM   #281
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 11,872
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Not that hard. Anyone with over 200 years' experience of it should do.

Dave
I plan to live forever.

So far so good.
__________________
"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 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 26th April 2018, 06:54 AM   #282
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,757
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
No. I'd like to have SOdhner's debate right here.
Here at ISF, sure. Not here in this thread as a substitute for and distraction from the points you've brought up and then try to abandon. This is where we talk about your ideas regarding effective debate. More importantly, it's where we challenge your claim to be able to recognize it and engage in it. There are several points on the table that have required your attention for days. You've whined about how much of that there is, and now you seem to want to add to all that by starting another debate.

What part of effective debate allows one side just to suddenly change the subject? Shouldn't effective debate require some accountability from its participants? You're fond of the courtroom. Do you not realize that such a thing as "contempt of court" is made to force participation in a debate where one side might feel reluctant to do so and, in so not doing, deprive the other party of a legitimate win?

Quote:
One key difference is the idea of one expert opponent per side.
You haven't been an expert in any of the subjects you've proposed and debated. Sure, you claimed to be an expert. But pretending to be some sort of scientist to talk about the Shroud of Turin and pretending to be a "certified statistician" to talk about statistical proofs of supernatural phenomena is not at all the same as actually being the expert. Those debates were more focused on supporting your personal claim to expertise and skill in those areas than about whether the thing debated was actually true. You surrounded yourself with religious sycophants who didn't care that you weren't the intellectual you claimed among them to be, then fell flat when you actually had to show the goods.

When your last debate finally came down to your false claims of expertise being incontrovertibly exposed, you abandoned the debate and came over here to profess yet more expertise you don't have -- that of being some expert on debate in general. And when that debate also ran aground, now you want to change the subject yet again.

And you have not required any sort of expertise from the other people you debate. Foremost on your list of criteria is a commitment to your one-sided ground rules. Beyond that, you seem to choose only the mildest of critics to be the champion for the other side. Actual expertise in the matter being debated seems to have no importance to you.

What part of effective debate involves casting and scripting both sides of it?

Quote:
From there we (humans) could develop global websites for the same subject areas.
You're already at a nationally-recognized web site that does all the things you say -- except, of course, to put you in charge. And you were given the chance to debate your critics one-on-one in this nationally-recognized place. And you showed that having all your ground rules granted to you for sufficient time to demonstrate their value resulted in no change whatsoever in your evasive and disrespectful behavior. As predicted, you found some pretense for abandoning that debate too.

As you told Talk Stats, you "hope [people] would just agree." You want debates in which your victory is a foregone conclusion. When you don't win, you don't for a moment pretend that it was just your poor reasoning skills and your lack of fact that is at fault. You imagine all sorts of misbehavior and malice among your critics. Can you really say that you're the best sort of person to be moderating debates on controversial subjects? What part of effective debate aims squarely at being nothing more than a theatrical exercise?

Quote:
I assume that these ideas sound simply like foolish flights of fancy --
No, in your case they are obviously just ego stroking. You want people to give you credit for expertise you don't have, whether it's in history and science, in statistics, or in the techniques of debate. You seem to be trying to create an online presence built around you and controlled by you that paints you in good light at the expense of all the people you sucker into participating. You literally did this, if you recall. You took one of the debates from this forum and edited it onto your personal blog to make it look like you won. You started doing the same thing with another of your debates here.

That and a few other things are what I spoke of earlier this week, pursuant to a request from you, illustrating how you in no way embody or understand how to approach civil and productive debate. Efforts to hold you accountable to the expertise you profess always seem to fail. You responded to that list of charges by subjecting it to the same process that has guaranteed stagnation in all your other threads. You proposed to bury it under the same churn you always do that avoids any substantial inquiry while conveying a cursory illusion of engagement.

You simply cannot demonstrate any proficiency in debate that rises above the same evasive and dishonest tactics pursued by other fringe theorists. Yet you seem to want to leap from soapbox to soapbox professing your knowledge and demanding accolades. Are you for real?
JayUtah 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 26th April 2018, 09:45 AM   #283
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,715
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Does the above include your opening statement. or would you like to say more?
Either way. I'm following your lead here, I want to see you demonstrate effective debate. You tell me what the format should be and I'll do it.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- No. I'd like to have SOdhner's debate right here.
Good. Yeah, just for the record please don't post this elsewhere.

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Here at ISF, sure. Not here in this thread as a substitute for and distraction from the points you've brought up and then try to abandon. This is where we talk about your ideas regarding effective debate. More importantly, it's where we challenge your claim to be able to recognize it and engage in it.
Honestly so far I haven't seen any real discussion of Effective Debate in terms of specifics. That's one of the main reasons I want to have a bit of a debate with Jabba, to get a more concrete feeling of what "effective debate" looks like to him and how it handles certain types of situations. I care about my "argument" only as a means to learn more about this topic, not as a theory unto itself - and so starting a new thread may be redundant.

If Jabba is going to answer the questions you want him to (which I haven't seen any evidence of) he can do it regardless of what other conversations he's having. Sure, he might claim that this is too much for him to handle but frankly that's a claim he makes already so I don't see that one more side conversation is going to change anything. Regardless of what and where I debate with him he's more than capable of avoiding answering anything he chooses.

Either way, I'm open to it being here or in another thread but I can see either one being the "wrong" option depending on how it goes. I'd say starting here makes the most sense, with it being split off if it actually goes anywhere.
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2018, 12:07 PM   #284
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,757
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
Either way, I'm open to it being here or in another thread but I can see either one being the "wrong" option depending on how it goes.
I see what you're trying to do. That makes sense.
JayUtah 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 26th April 2018, 02:19 PM   #285
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
Great! I'm looking forward to seeing you model effective debate for us.

To everyone but Jabba - don't bother debating me, I won't be responding to anyone but Jabba on this one. This thread will simultaneously be a test of my theory (which I will state below) and a test of Jabba's method of Effective Debate. So far he has made a case that there is a need for us to debate things differently, to be more open to new ideas and information, to avoid name-calling, etc. and he deserves an opportunity to demonstrate this for us.

To mods - Should this be a separate thread? I can't decide. We can move it if needed.

To Jabba - Here's my claim: I believe I can prove that the universe is actually centered on me - I know this sounds silly, I'm aware that this isn't something that you (or anyone here) would be inclined to take seriously, but I mean to conclusively prove it. It is my argument that everything "revolves" around me (revolves being a slightly imprecise term, but we can get into that as needed). I can prove this using math, physics, and basic logic. That being said, I'm open to the idea that this is incorrect and will gladly concede if you can show the flaws in my arguments. If you, like most people, think that this argument is absurd that shouldn't discourage you - in fact it should make you all the more eager to engage with me since your debate tactics should be easy to employ against something that is unfounded.

Jabba, I'm really looking forward to this and I want to genuinely thank you for agreeing to work with me on it.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
SOdhner,
- Does the above include your opening statement. or would you like to say more?
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
Either way. I'm following your lead here, I want to see you demonstrate effective debate. You tell me what the format should be and I'll do it...
- OK.
- My first question: Do you think that argument is absurd?
__________________
"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 26th April 2018, 02:33 PM   #286
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,222
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- OK.
- My first question: Do you think that argument is absurd?
What do you hope to accomplish by adding such a question?
RoboTimbo 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 26th April 2018, 02:36 PM   #287
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,301
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
What do you hope to accomplish by adding such a question?
It delays having to present a counter-argument that would then be subject to review and rebuttal in the course of Effective Debate?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2018, 02:36 PM   #288
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
LL,
- So far, I really like Kialo -- it seems to largely reflect my thoughts about what makes for effective debate...
- Though, it will take me a while to learn, and remember, the mechanics.
__________________
"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 26th April 2018, 02:39 PM   #289
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,757
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
What do you hope to accomplish by adding such a question?
Obviously to avoid having to debate.
JayUtah 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 26th April 2018, 02:43 PM   #290
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,222
Single pane windows may be more transparent but not by much.
RoboTimbo 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 26th April 2018, 02:43 PM   #291
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 11,872
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Obviously to avoid having to debate.
First assume a perfectly round debate over an infinite plane of uniform gravity...
__________________
"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 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 26th April 2018, 02:45 PM   #292
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,301
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
First assume a perfectly round debate over an infinite plane of uniform gravity...
Huh. Would that mean that the force of the plane's gravity on the sphere could be modeled as a point on the plane directly beneath the sphere?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2018, 02:46 PM   #293
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,301
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- So far, I really like Kialo -- it seems to largely reflect my thoughts about what makes for effective debate...
- Though, it will take me a while to learn, and remember, the mechanics.
Apparently the first rule of Effective Debate is to promptly avoid any debate actually offered to you.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2018, 04:56 PM   #294
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,757
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Apparently the first rule of Effective Debate is to promptly avoid any debate actually offered to you.
"Here, as a case study in how to debate, let's debate a proposition that's admittedly, patently absurd so that we can focus on the process and not the outcome."
"Okay."
"All right, here's the statement of the argument."
"Do you agree it's absurd?"

*facepalm*

If anyone needed any more evidence that Jabba has no clue what a debate actually is and no desire to actually talk about it or have one...
JayUtah 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 26th April 2018, 10:03 PM   #295
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,715
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- My first question: Do you think that argument is absurd?
That's not really a debate kind of question though, is it? By definition if I say yes then we're done without us ever having had any actual discussion of any kind. Still, I guess there's nothing wrong with getting it out of the way.

Here's what I'll say: I plan on making an argument for my premise, one that will allow you to demonstrate your debate techniques. I've chosen this claim specifically because it's out there, since that keeps the focus on the debate techniques. I don't want to get into something you feel strongly about (like the Shroud stuff, or the immortality thing) nor do I want to get into something where modern science is totally divided, or something where it's more of an opinion than fact. This topic seems like one that will be a good way to help you model effective debate.

In other words, it's not something I would otherwise be arguing for - but I think that's actually a *good* thing in this case.
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2018, 12:40 AM   #296
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,272
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- OK.
- My first question: Do you think that argument is absurd?

Does anyone else get the feeling that if someone else had asked Jabba this question it would have been regarded as disrespectful, or even insulting?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2018, 12:43 AM   #297
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,272
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Obviously to avoid having to debate.

Jabba doesn’t want a debate, he wants a safe space for his claims.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2018, 04:30 AM   #298
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,776
Why is this a separate thread from the one where he avoids discussing immortality?

Shouldn't all the threads where Jabba pretends he’s going to discuss things but never does be consolidated?
halleyscomet 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 27th April 2018, 04:30 AM   #299
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,883
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Does anyone else get the feeling that if someone else had asked Jabba this question it would have been regarded as disrespectful, or even insulting?
Without a shadow of a doubt
__________________
"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 27th April 2018, 04:44 AM   #300
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,776
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Does anyone else get the feeling that if someone else had asked Jabba this question it would have been regarded as disrespectful, or even insulting?


The question has been asked in various forms. From what I’ve seen he typically either drops into the “foolish old man” act, ignores it entirely, or gets puffed up in manufactured indignation.

His questions are typically absurd as he’s usually trying to get people to discuss minutia about an equation with completely make up values. He’s made it clear that providing an explanation for HOW he came up with specific values is not something he’s never going to do.

The old “Could the Federation beat the Empire?” debate has more sense and science to it than any of Jabba’s posts about his equation to prove immortality.
halleyscomet 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 27th April 2018, 05:02 AM   #301
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,106
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
The old “Could the Federation beat the Empire?” debate has more sense and science to it than any of Jabba’s posts about his equation to prove immortality.
...and sounds to me like a good topic for a trial of Jabba's effective debate approach, since (a) there are numerous sub, sub-sub and sub-sub-sub-issues to branch off into, (b) there are plenty of people claiming expertise on either side, (c) it's clearly an undecided question, and (d) nobody sane actually cares about the result.

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 27th April 2018, 05:15 AM   #302
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,776
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
...and sounds to me like a good topic for a trial of Jabba's effective debate approach, since (a) there are numerous sub, sub-sub and sub-sub-sub-issues to branch off into, (b) there are plenty of people claiming expertise on either side, (c) it's clearly an undecided question, and (d) nobody sane actually cares about the result.



Dave


The correct answer of course is Honor Harrington would breeze in with pretty much any ship she’s ever captained. The wedge propulsion system would render her virtually immune to any of the weapons on on either side. She’d proceed to crush the Empire with comical ease and out bureaucracy the Federation.

The Orville on the other hand would stumble in, nearly get blown up, escape after socially painful hijinks, and scoot off with the captain and first officer having had another “growth” moment in their relationship that serves only to prolong the “will they won’t they?” Tension.
halleyscomet 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 27th April 2018, 06:49 AM   #303
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
...
To Jabba - Here's my claim: I believe I can prove that the universe is actually centered on me - I know this sounds silly, I'm aware that this isn't something that you (or anyone here) would be inclined to take seriously, but I mean to conclusively prove it. It is my argument that everything "revolves" around me (revolves being a slightly imprecise term, but we can get into that as needed). I can prove this using math, physics, and basic logic. That being said, I'm open to the idea that this is incorrect and will gladly concede if you can show the flaws in my arguments. If you, like most people, think that this argument is absurd that shouldn't discourage you - in fact it should make you all the more eager to engage with me since your debate tactics should be easy to employ against something that is unfounded...
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
SOdhner,
- Does the above include your opening statement. or would you like to say more?
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
Either way. I'm following your lead here, I want to see you demonstrate effective debate. You tell me what the format should be and I'll do it...
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- OK.
- My first question: Do you think that argument is absurd?
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
That's not really a debate kind of question though, is it? By definition if I say yes then we're done without us ever having had any actual discussion of any kind. Still, I guess there's nothing wrong with getting it out of the way.

Here's what I'll say: I plan on making an argument for my premise, one that will allow you to demonstrate your debate techniques. I've chosen this claim specifically because it's out there, since that keeps the focus on the debate techniques. I don't want to get into something you feel strongly about (like the Shroud stuff, or the immortality thing) nor do I want to get into something where modern science is totally divided, or something where it's more of an opinion than fact. This topic seems like one that will be a good way to help you model effective debate.

In other words, it's not something I would otherwise be arguing for - but I think that's actually a *good* thing in this case.
- Good. I suppose that my basic idea is that the discussion be honest -- and "transparent," -- except for the emotionality. In this case, you want to see how I would handle what would seem to be an obviously foolish claim. Here's the idea.

SOdhner,
- Why would you think such a thing?

- (Here, I spoke to you by name, which suggests respect, and I expressed some honest skepticism with your claim -- but, I didn't call it, or you, "stupid." Even though in reality, I might believe both are true. I think that keeping the conversation civil is critical to moving it ahead.
- And, I probably wouldn't expect to change your mind -- I'd just be trying to play to the audience/jury as well as possible.)
__________________
"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

Last edited by Jabba; 27th April 2018 at 06:52 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 27th April 2018, 07:34 AM   #304
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,757
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
but, I didn't call it, or you, "stupid." Even though in reality, I might believe both are true.
So where does that fit into your threads where you insist -- with no evidence whatsoever -- that your critics are limited to "analytical" thinking while you are a "holistic" thinker and therefore somehow more naturally able to understand the argument? I can point to a number of cases in your own debates where you claim superior knowledge and understanding without being able or willing to demonstrate it. Isn't all this just a slightly veiled form of calling your opponent stupid?

Conversely in quite a number of your threads you lay the foundation of your argument on expertise you don't have and can't or won't demonstrate. You say that if there's any question whether you or your critics have the right answer, it should be resolved in your favor because your judgment in the matter is to be considered the most expert and therefore the most correct. If such a situation were to come up in a formal debate, wouldn't it be an appropriate line of questioning to challenge the foundation of alleged expertise? And if such a challenge were issued, how appropriate is it for you to complain, "But you're all just calling me stupid?"

If your goal is to lie to an audience and get away with it, then "effective" debate along those lines might include claims you are reasonably sure the audience can't or won't check up on, such as claims to personal expertise. And in order to continue being "effective" at deception, you'd have to poison the well any time challenges did arise from your opponent. You'd have to maintain the double standard that it's okay for you to question your opponents' knowledge, but it's not appropriate for them to question yours.

Quote:
I think that keeping the conversation civil is critical to moving it ahead.
And here at ISF there's a mechanism to enforce civility. In its mildest form, offending posts simply disappear. In its more aggressive form, offenders are called out and publicly disciplined. Somewhere in between are official warnings from moderators to stick to the point, avoid ad hominem statements, etc. You seem to have been both on the beneficial and detrimental ends of moeratorial action at ISF, so you would be hard pressed to argue it's been unfair to you.

And while it's self-evidently true that civil debates make better progress than incivil ones, it's also true in your case that your personal threshold -- not just the official ISF ground rules -- marches back and forth depending one who's speaking and what's happening. At times you demand more than just civility -- you demand friendliness. That's a whole different standard. It suggests a sympathy for another's plight that would be out of place in a debate. Debates by definition require opposing motivations. Requiring friendliness from your opponents, over and above civility, is a form of ad hominem argument.

And on the other side of that, you're still avoiding dealing with examples of your own incivility in debate. Defensible behavior in a public debate goes far beyond merely not calling your opponent names. It covers other things to do and not to do, such as -- for example -- publishing a different version of the debate that spells out a markedly different outcome. It especially covers egregious things like outright lying about what your opponents have said or agreed to, as well as more subtle things like whether you're actually engaging in the debate or just writing throwaway posts to seem like you're engaged without actually addressing the content.

So it would seem you have a very fluid standard for what constitutes good behavior in a debate. I wouldn't really try to rest on those laurels.

And let's take as another example what happened to you yesterday in your statistics debate. You made a patently absurd mathematical assertion. It was labeled something like "nonsensical drivel" by one of your critics -- a professional physicist for whom mathematics is considered second nature and whose expertise is established. You took that as a personal insult, even though it clearly was not. Even in "effective" debates, absurd statements -- or, shall we say, facially implausible statements -- will be made. It's in everyone's interest that those statements be seen for what they are, not glossed over and given an inappropriately mush-headed academic treatment. As they say, "Sometimes a horse laugh is worth more than a hundred syllogisms."

Another example therefore where your judgment on what constitutes civility seems to be considerably impaired and biased.

So in an effective debate, should claims of incivility be allowed to substitute for addressing the meat of the statement? Should they constitute a thermostat that one party can set to avoid another's statements altogether without question or recourse?

Quote:
And, I probably wouldn't expect to change your mind -- I'd just be trying to play to the audience/jury as well as possible.)[/i]
Which sounds an awful lot like theatrics aimed to impress, or to appeal to emotional interests. Let's say you're making an argument that relies heavily on mathematics that aren't commonly understood. Mathematical proofs are either correct according to the math or they aren't. While the application of the result to the real world might involve judgment and subjectivity, what the result actually is and how it's arrived at either conform to the principles of math or they don't. Would "playing to the audience" perhaps include suggesting that an incorrect proof is really correct, banking on the likely inability of the audience members to try that claim knowledgeably? Would it involve teaching them just enough of the math to make it seem like the proof might work, and currying their favor for raising their knowledge level?

Your view of "effective" seems to lack or shift rapidly among different notions of "effective at what?" Here it seems "effective" means "effective at convincing an audience of something that's not true." Is that a noble thing?
JayUtah 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 27th April 2018, 07:47 AM   #305
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,757
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Why would you think such a thing?
"Why would you think such a thing?" is a markedly different kind of question than, say, "What reasons are there to believe that thing?" Your version appeals to emotion, not reason. It contains a veiled disapprobation of the conclusion and therefore of the proponent's yet-unstated reasons for believing it. "Such a thing" implies "such a thing as what?" You've immediately cast aspersions on it by nothing more than categorical dictum. "Would you" rather than "do you" implies acting against a moral or intellectual standard. It suggests SOdhner should have better judgment than to argue in favor of that proposition.

Ineffective at testing whether there really is a good case for the proposition. But effective at emotionally manipulating an imaginary audience to disapprove of your interlocutor. This what you consider "effective?"

Last edited by JayUtah; 27th April 2018 at 07:48 AM.
JayUtah 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 27th April 2018, 08:00 AM   #306
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,106
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
And let's take as another example what happened to you yesterday in your statistics debate. You made a patently absurd mathematical assertion. It was labeled something like "nonsensical drivel" by one of your critics -- a professional physicist for whom mathematics is considered second nature and whose expertise is established. You took that as a personal insult, even though it clearly was not.
There's another interesting point to consider here. I noticed that Jabba responded pretty quickly to what he thought was an insult; however, he hasn't yet responded to the example I showed of deriving a probability P(I) many, many orders of magnitude smaller than his guess for P(E|H), demonstrating the absurdity of his claim that P(E|H) is so small that P(E|~H) simply must be bigger whatever its actual value. It seems he's avoiding responding to arguments that actually refute his claims, and preferring to quibble over debating styles. That doesn't, to me, seem like an approach designed to arrive at well-established truths; rather, it seems calculated to avoid them.

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 27th April 2018, 08:02 AM   #307
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,715
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Why would you think such a thing?
The universe must have a center. Determining what that center is can be difficult, and yet I believe I have figured it out. Hubble (the person, not the telescope) found that the further away things are the faster they're moving away from us. This clearly demonstrates that we're in the center of an expanding universe. Also, there appear to be roughly the same number of galaxies in all directions, again indicating we're in the middle. As many, many people have found to be obvious the Earth is the center of the universe - it would be disrespectful to just assume they're all wrong. When it comes to figuring out the exact center, there are some experiments you can do. First you have to recognize that any frame of reference is valid, so we're just looking for any frame of reference that has some advantage that would make us say it's the "best" one. I already showed that Earth is in the center of the universe, so now we're just deciding whether or not we can narrow it down further. As it turns out, every single measurement I take to any heavenly body we can observe in the universe forms a DIRECT LINE back to me. What are the odds of this? Given the size of the universe (effectively infinite) I think it's safe to say that it's essentially zero and so cannot be a coincidence. Thus I am the center of the universe.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Here, I (...)
I'm going to leave the commentary on your actual debate techniques to others, I'll just serve as the cardboard stand-up opponent for you. Note that I don't intend to always match your rules, in part because you can then also show how you respond to people that don't share your debate style.
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2018, 10:06 AM   #308
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,757
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
That doesn't, to me, seem like an approach designed to arrive at well-established truths; rather, it seems calculated to avoid them.
Absolutely. A big part of Fringe Debate, as opposed to Effective Debate, is having a whole arsenal of those kinds of excuses for why you can ignore the substance of someone's posts, even if the post makes a logically valid argument. It is, in fact, a sort of ad hominem rebuttal. That's ironic because we commonly think of an ad hominem argument as one that makes a personal attack or insult. But in fact if one phrases a logically correct argument in derogatory language, dismissing the argument because of its offensive diction misses the logical point and therefore is the actual ad hominem argument.

In short, if your post gives your opponent two things to object to, he'll object to the one that is the farthest away from his point. In law, every cause of action has a body of alleged fact and a legal theory for injury. The joke goes that if you're weak on the facts, thump the law. If you're weak on the law, thump the facts. If you're weak on both, thump the table. I remember working with a lawyer who once told me, "If you hear me objecting a lot during the other guy's examination, that means I think I'm losing."

Last edited by JayUtah; 27th April 2018 at 10:09 AM.
JayUtah 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 27th April 2018, 11:31 AM   #309
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,272
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Here, I spoke to you by name, which suggests respect, and I expressed some honest skepticism with your claim -- but, I didn't call it, or you, "stupid." Even though in reality, I might believe both are true.

You didn’t?

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
In this case, you want to see how I would handle what would seem to be an obviously foolish claim.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2018, 01:46 PM   #310
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,757
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
You didn’t?
S0dhner allowed, "If you, like most people, think that this argument is absurd that shouldn't discourage you..." It's a straw-man question, intentionally. Jabba says he likes to go through all the arguments methodically. One side presents its case completely, and the other side presents its case completely. The focus is on the content, not the footing. So the only argument that's disallowed in the S0dhner-Jabba debate is, "That's absurd!" and that's supposed to epitomize Jabba's idea of effective debate.

Look at that in contrast to Jabba's other arguments in his other threads, some of which are absurd or broken on their face. When we point out that they're absurd and/or obviously broken right out of the gate, Jabba discounts that and wants to delve into all the "sub-sub-sub-issues" anyway. What S0dhner has managed to do in just a few short posts is illustrate that Jabba's ideals of debate are pretty much a double standard.
JayUtah 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 27th April 2018, 02:22 PM   #311
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
The universe must have a center. Determining what that center is can be difficult, and yet I believe I have figured it out. Hubble (the person, not the telescope) found that the further away things are the faster they're moving away from us. This clearly demonstrates that we're in the center of an expanding universe. Also, there appear to be roughly the same number of galaxies in all directions, again indicating we're in the middle. As many, many people have found to be obvious the Earth is the center of the universe - it would be disrespectful to just assume they're all wrong. When it comes to figuring out the exact center, there are some experiments you can do. First you have to recognize that any frame of reference is valid, so we're just looking for any frame of reference that has some advantage that would make us say it's the "best" one. I already showed that Earth is in the center of the universe, so now we're just deciding whether or not we can narrow it down further. As it turns out, every single measurement I take to any heavenly body we can observe in the universe forms a DIRECT LINE back to me. What are the odds of this? Given the size of the universe (effectively infinite) I think it's safe to say that it's essentially zero and so cannot be a coincidence. Thus I am the center of the universe...
- SOdhner,
- Very interesting!
- From above: Hubble (the person, not the telescope) found that the further away things are the faster they're moving away from us. This clearly demonstrates that we're in the center of an expanding universe.
- I do understand (courtesy Hubble) that the universe is expanding faster than we had previously thought -- but I didn't know about the distance variance. Please provide a source for the latter.
__________________
"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 27th April 2018, 02:36 PM   #312
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,757
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I didn't know about the distance variance. Please provide a source for the latter.
It's literally Hubble's Law. Looks like we have our first attempt to derail into irrelevant sub-sub-sub-issues.

Last edited by JayUtah; 27th April 2018 at 02:42 PM.
JayUtah 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 27th April 2018, 02:46 PM   #313
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,715
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- From above: Hubble (the person, not the telescope) found that the further away things are the faster they're moving away from us. This clearly demonstrates that we're in the center of an expanding universe.
- I do understand (courtesy Hubble) that the universe is expanding faster than we had previously thought -- but I didn't know about the distance variance. Please provide a source for the latter.
http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academi...ubbles_law.htm
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2018, 04:09 PM   #314
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,466
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
... but I didn't know about the distance variance. ....
Holy crap, even a hack like me knew that.
The Sparrow 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 27th April 2018, 04:26 PM   #315
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,757
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
Do you see the problem here, Jabba? S0dhner has provided a reference like you asked, and I'm sure you'll graciously thank him for it. The problem is that you don't seem to have first considered the possibility that the point at hand was reasonably common, reasonably accessible, reasonably uncontroversial knowledge that you could have found yourself. Nobody is expecting you to be an astrophysicist, of course. But it's reasonable in Effective Debate to expect a party who has been presented with unfamiliar information to make some effort on his own to discover or verify it before asking the other party to document it as a novel or contested proposition. Just because it's unfamiliar to you doesn't mean it's controversial. It's just Hubble's Law, which you can find in any physics textbook. There is a difference between the responsibility to document a claim and a responsibility to provide remedial education on common subjects.

Fringe Debate tries to place as onerous a burden as possible on the other party to do things that the respondent can or should have done for himself. Usually the goal is to try to paint the other guy -- sooner or later -- as "uncooperative." Since it's usually kosher to ask for sources and references in a debate, an audience won't necessarily immediately see that what's being asked for is unremarkable knowledge or remedial education and therefore beyond the scope of ordinary obligations of production. Thus when the opponent finally gets fed up and says, "These are things you need to look up on your own," it can be spun to support an accusation of non-cooperation.

The probability density function is one such example from your other debates. You tried to get others to educate you about it. But that's not their job. It's a common elementary concept in statistics, and if your opponent in a debate over a statistical proof refers to it, it's not his responsibility to remedy your unfamiliarity with the function or prove to you that such functions exist and are an important thing. You don't get to use your present knowledge at the time and place of the debate as the gold standard for what your opponent is required to produce. This example was doubly egregious because (1) you claimed to be an expert, and (2) your critics in that debate often do provide lengthy remedial explanations for your benefit, which you ignore.

That gets down to the real problem here -- when you ask for things you don't need or intend to use, simply to obstruct the debate. That's Fringe Debate, not Effective Debate. If, in this case, you understand that the universe is observed to expand, you know all you need to in order to get to the real argument in S0dhner's line of reasoning, which was the all-important selection of an appropriate reference frame. If you're really paying attention to his reasoning, you might have some inkling of what's yet to come. It should seem familiar to you. As it stands, the crux of his argument is lost in a haze of unnecessary documentation and detail-quibbling already. Fringe Debate bogs down and loses momentum in order to make it unpalatable for anyone to engage.
JayUtah 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 28th April 2018, 09:17 AM   #316
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
- If "things" are all going away from us at roughly the same speed) (at the same distances, it would sure seem like we're central -- like the center of the big bang. Do you know of a source that says explicitly that things in the opposite directions from us are going away from us at the same speed?

- I'll get back to the further the faster as soon as possible.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Jabba; 28th April 2018 at 09:22 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 April 2018, 10:04 AM   #317
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,757
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Do you know of a source that says explicitly that things in the opposite directions from us are going away from us at the same speed?
While you're away, ponder the stupidity of the thing you just said.
JayUtah 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 28th April 2018, 10:24 AM   #318
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,301
Is it just me or is it already obvious that Jabba's technique, as applied by him, will never actually getting around to rebutting sodners claim?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2018, 11:35 AM   #319
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,272
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'll get back to the further the faster as soon as possible.

Why?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2018, 11:38 AM   #320
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,776
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Is it just me or is it already obvious that Jabba's technique, as applied by him, will never actually getting around to rebutting sodners claim?

What makes you say that? Other than over half a decade of precedent that is.
halleyscomet 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
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 08:16 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.