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 30th April 2018, 11:45 AM   #361
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
Jabba,



I don't really understand this sentence.



By definition, when the universe was a single point everything was at the center.



Well just to be clear, I'm saying that I specifically am the current center of the universe.
- Am I also the current center of the universe?
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico 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 30th April 2018, 11:59 AM   #362
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,076
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I do think that referring to one's opponent by their 'first' name is helpful to effective dialogue...
You haven't explained why. If this thread is to explore your methods for debate, then you owe us a reason for why you think this contributes. As I noted, when it's insisted upon between adversaries, it runs the risk of currying favor. You haven't addressed that risk, or what precise benefit outweighs that risk. So far you're just insisting on a meaningless consistency.

Quote:
In responding to your responses, I'll try to respond to just one or two sub-issues at a time.
This particular rule has an incredibly long and detailed track record, Jabba. You never get beyond the first sub-sub-sub-issue. When it finally gets argued to the point of futility, you just fringe-reset the argument and start again. As a result, the structure of the opponent's argument never gets addressed and no further details get addressed. As everyone you've ever engaged has noted, it's a tactic apparently designed to ensure no progress is ever made. Even worse, when you employ this tactic in your own debates, you go so far as to assert that the rest of your line of reasoning is solid, if we could only just get past the one sub-sub-sub-issue. You make inappropriate representations about the parts of the debate that you ensure never arrive.

See, your opponent is already onto you.
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
I have to admit it seems like your strategy isn't going to ever get this issue resolved.
In other debate methods that are proven practical, summaries of the case-in-chief and of the opponent's rebuttal case have proven themselves to be worthwhile. If the argument is broken at the structural level -- as many of yours historically have been -- then that can be seen and dispelled right away. There is no need to go into excruciating detail. To me, that spells Effective Debate. In contrast, Fringe Debate seems to exist for no purpose other than to perpetuate itself and possibly force its critics away when they realize no progress will ever be made; that attrition can then be rewritten as a victory. You've done this before, which obviously doesn't make it a very good rule if it can be misused that way.

Originally Posted by Jabba
In my format, the optimal situation is that the two opponents are both experts re the issue. Certainly, I'm no expert in physics or astronomy, so here, I'm just "flying by the seat of my pants," and I'll have to learn as I go.
But then how is that Effective Debate? If you don't know what you're talking about, how can you effectively understand what the argument is trying to say and what would constitute a valid rebuttal? Wouldn't Effective Debate simply have you say, "I'm sorry, I don't understand these topics well enough to debate you on them." Why should the rules of debate have to bend to allow an unqualfied, unprepared participant? Doesn't that waste the other person's time?

Fringe Debate, on the other hand, seems to assume that whatever knowledge a party possesses is adequate to the task, and that the problem should be simplified down to that level of understanding even if it loses its essence in the process. Consider your utter inability to reason through likelihoods and probabilities considered as distributions. That's how statistics is really done, but you insist that your "genius" proof for immortality be shoehorned into the beginner's world of scalar probabilities and "one-minus" indirections. It seems to me that debate that's limited to inexpert knowledge, or to what one layman can learn over the course of the debate, doesn't seem to be practical or Effective.

We look to your previous debates also for the teachability factor. Science, the legal rules of evidence, probability, archaeology -- these are all subjects you've tackled in various debates, and all subjects upon which you've eventually displayed a degree of ignorance high enough to warrant concern. Yet on none of these topics have you proven a willingness to expand your knowledge. The folks outside ISF you tried to consult on statistics flat-out called you unteachable. Fringe Debate seems determined forever to "fly by the seat of the pants" instead of either resigning the debate or expanding the understanding of the deficient party. That doesn't seem to be Effective toward obtaining a verdict or respectful to the other parties who came prepared.

Further, Fringe Debate seems to impose the burden of remediation on the knowledgeable party. In your debates you demand that your critics educate you when you are shown to be deficient. You don't seem to take responsibility yourself for learning. As I've written before, it's especially galling to your critics when they take you at your word and tutor you, only to be ignored. It seems Fringe Debate's improper imposition doesn't have the practical value it would seem; it imposes the duty only to appear to shift responsibility. If the opponent declines that responsibility -- as a sensible opponent would, after being abused a sufficient number of times -- then it can be spun, social-engineering fashion, as lack of cooperation.

We already spoke about your particular reliance on having third parties educate you interactively, rather than your just going off to get a book from the many excellent libraries I understand are near you. This is and oddly narrow focus when your excuse is later that you can't get any cooperation or good information from these third parties and therefore the debate must stagnate.

Originally Posted by Jabba
The one 'expert' I can remember for sure was Marilyn from Parade Magazine, but she just didn't answer me.
Why should she? Why would you think she would? If I have a question about thermodynamics, I don't go bug Neil de Grasse Tyson or Henry Petroski. They have better things to do than teach me elementary concepts that I may not know or have forgotten. Their non-response shouldn't carry any weight, nor should they delay this debate.

S0dhner has already explained why the semi-anonymous person to whom you seem to be referring would not be a good expert.

Quote:
The other two were physicists from GE.
I assume you're not familiar with the principle of voir dire. In law, this is the doctrine the persons presenting themselves to a court to participate in some way in the proceedings are subject to examination that's designed to determine their fitness to participate. Jurors are interviewed for possible biases. Experts aiming to serve as witnesses are examined to establish the basis of their expertise. Both parties to the controversy participate in this, and the actual debate does not proceed until both parties are reasonably confident that the participants are suitable.

What you're doing here is denying us voir dire. That's not Effective Debate. Fringe Debate, on the other hand, seems to want allegedly expert testimony mumbled from the shadows to be taken at face value, as reported by the inexpert advocate.

General Electric has been a client of mine for many years. I respect them and their employees. But physics is a broad field. The physics that GE deals with is much more Newtonian, Hookean, Kirchovian, Bolzmannlich -- if you will. They have very little time for pondering the mysteries of the universe. In any case, Effective Debate doesn't allow the unlearned advocate to formulate the questions and interpret the answers for everyone. Your opponent has the right to ensure you asked the appropriate questions and have reproduced the answers faithfully, without having to trust you. We need to know what exactly you asked. Or more likely, we need to confirm that you really did ask anyone at all and aren't just fabricating the whole story.

As a control, luckily I have two real-life physicists on staff. One graduated in physics from the university I taught at, and the other taught first-year college physics at the university I taught at. They have pondered the mysteries of the universe (at least as Hubble described them), and they don't agree that your questions are even remotely difficult.

Your opponent has asked this a couple times
Originally Posted by S0dhner
What kind of credentials does one need to count as an expert for your purposes?
and you haven't really answered. But you do go on to say...

Quote:
The people around me tend to be well educated, and no one I ever asked about this had ever thought about it before.
We don't know what you mean by "well-educated." We don't know what standards you apply. Therefore we have no basis for resolving the ambiguity this anecdote raises. You seem to be saying this is unplowed ground in physics, and that your well-educated neighbors not having thought of it should be evidence of its novelty. Well, no.

Quote:
To me, it's an obvious and 'exciting' question. Which way was the "Big Bang"?
But was it exciting and obvious to you before S0dhner brought it up? Did you think about it at all before this debate?

I guarantee you didn't. What you're trying to do here is stir up a lot of interest in the sub-sub-sub-issue you've latched on to, so that you can pretend there's value in staying here. "Gee, nobody's interested? I'm interested; let's stay here and have an intelli-picnic for several days."

And I guarantee that physics has an answer both to your question and to S0dhner's proposed proof. And I guarantee it's an answer you're never going to find by scrabbling at sub-sub-sub-issues and pretending to marshal a cadre of anonymous pseudo-experts to endorse the scrabbling.

Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
(I still don't see why you want me to write your name at the start of every post - we both know who we're talking to. But I'll do it from now on anyway I guess.)
He's feeling you out, to see how obedient you'll be to having him dictate the tenor and terms of the debate.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2018, 11:59 AM   #363
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,414
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Am I also the current center of the universe?

Are you and SOdhner looking out of one set of eyes?
__________________
"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 30th April 2018, 12:07 PM   #364
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,794
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Sounds like I was at the center of the universe.

I love, love, love this pivot. Jabba can't actually debate the topic so he brings it back to immortality, which he knows how to keep going for years. If the answer is that "he" wasn't at the center of the universe because "he" didn't exist then, suddenly Jabba's off into arguing that he's immortal.

It's like a politician answering a question about campaign-finance reform with a description f the hardships facing veterans.

Jabba - Engage in the debate. So far, you haven't taken even a single step towards effective written debate. Hint: Your position should be that SOdhner is NOT the center of the universe.
__________________
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 30th April 2018, 12:08 PM   #365
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,076
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Am I also the current center of the universe?
Instead of asking, why not make a case that you are or you aren't. You still have yet to actually start debating.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2018, 12:20 PM   #366
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,050
I'm sure when the debate starts, it will be very effective.
Monza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2018, 12:21 PM   #367
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,742
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Am I also the current center of the universe?
Jabba (Are we still doing the name thing? I don't care either way but I noticed you didn't do it this time.),

You're exceptionally close to it for sure, since I'm the center and we're not particularly far away from each other. But we can't both be the center.
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 30th April 2018, 12:31 PM   #368
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,614
Originally Posted by Monza View Post
I'm sure when the debate starts, it will be very effective.
You're being misled by a coordinate singularity. Transform to Jabba Debate Coordinates, and you'll see that the debate has already started, and is already being very effective at the things Jabba wants debate to be effective at.
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 30th April 2018, 01:44 PM   #369
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
Jabba (Are we still doing the name thing? I don't care either way but I noticed you didn't do it this time.),

You're exceptionally close to it for sure, since I'm the center and we're not particularly far away from each other. But we can't both be the center.
Sod,
- To me, it seems "overdone" to use the name all the time -- here and there seems more natural and friendly. Using the name now and then seems to be a way of indicating respect. My claim is that it is useful to the discussion to indicate respect for one's opponent.
- Just to throw in a caveat(?), the objective of my model of debate is to best seek the truth. My conscious objective is not to win -- though my subconscious objective often belies my conscious objective.

- So, why are you the center rather than me?
__________________
"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 30th April 2018, 02:15 PM   #370
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,742
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So, why are you the center rather than me?
Well, that was explained in my opening statement. Are we starting over?

(Depending on how you define opening statement. The post where I laid out my reasoning, you know the one.)

Last edited by SOdhner; 30th April 2018 at 02:22 PM.
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 30th April 2018, 02:52 PM   #371
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,076
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
My claim is that it is useful to the discussion to indicate respect for one's opponent.
I don't see how it indicates respect. Further, I don't see how your attention to wrangling over whether we get to use shortened names or nicknames furthers that goal. To me it appears you're trying to impose pointless rules just to see how far you can go.

Further, if respect is an issue -- a week or so ago you asked for and were given a list of ways in which you have habitually, systematically disrespected your critics in debate over the years. You were asked to reconcile that list with your ideals of "effective written debate," but you evaded that responsibility the same way you have evaded every other meaningful responsibility in any of the debates I've seen you have. You insisted on dissecting it endlessly to the point where it ceased to have any meaning and never arrived at its destination. When your critics rightly asked you to respond in a way that was not your usual evasion, you suddenly pretended that list of disrespects no longer existed.

The points we raised, such as ignoring what others say and blaming others for problems you cause are, in my estimation, far more indicative of whether a debate is respectful. Outward, meaningless gestures like calling your opponent by his name are trivially unimportant by comparison. You will need to convince me you have a genuine interest in respecting your critics.

Quote:
Just to throw in a caveat(?), the objective of my model of debate is to best seek the truth.
No, I don't believe you.

You admit that you "play to the audience," when it's been pointed out that this would be a persuasive exercise, not a truth-divining exercise.

I'm sure you're going to get more than one "laughing dog" response to this statement. I doubt that anyone who has debated you over the past five years will agree that your behavior in debate is at all consistent with a search for truth, "be it whatever it may." On the contrary, everyone who has encountered your debate style characterizes it as an impenetrable wall of obfuscation, equivocation, and delay meant to create the illusion of debate and the illusion of support for a predetermined belief.

In your statistics debate, you admitted without reservation that the conclusion you drew, supposedly on the basis of statistical reasoning, was actually a belief you came to as a teenager, for which you had a strong emotional investment, and which you admitted would devastate you emotionally were you unable to prove it mathematically. I struggle to see how, in any sensible parsing of your words, there is even remotely a search for truth.

And elsewhere you confess your disdain for skeptics and vow that you're going to go out on the Internet and give those godless atheists what-for. Even here and now you're "flying by the seat of your pants" rather than trying to learn about the underlying sciences and formulate a cogent rebuttal.

No. You're going to have to convince me that you're interested only in the truth.

Quote:
My conscious objective is not to win -- though my subconscious objective often belies my conscious objective.
Your conscious objective, as evidenced by your behavior, is to appear to win debates. For example, you republish debates on your own personal blog, edited to make it look like you won. You do this over and above the objections of people whose posts you co-opt and mangle, reminding them that there is nothing they can do to stop you. This is a conscious, deliberate effort requiring considerable planning and execution. You cannot for one moment pretend that you are only "unconsciously" trying to (appear to) win.

Further, you constantly remind your critics in your debates that you believe a hypothetical "neutral jury" would judge your arguments much more favorably than would your critics. You are so obviously obsessed with victory that you have to invent an imaginary audience to tell you that you won.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2018, 03:18 PM   #372
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,267
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So, why are you the center rather than me?
I've seen debates on this very forum where a claimant would be offended at the notion of his claims being questioned. What do you think about that, seeing as how you are questioning his claim?
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 30th April 2018, 03:50 PM   #373
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,794
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Just to throw in a caveat(?), the objective of my model of debate is to best seek the truth.

Jabba -

You previously said that the purpose of debate was to fully flesh out "both sides" of a question so that some unnamed neutral observer can read all of it and make a decision. Is that no longer true?

Perhaps the ultimate purpose of debate might be to seek the truth, but your method of debate requires someone to take an opposing position. Are you not volunteering to be the person taking the opposite position now? If you're not, how do you intend to demonstrate your methods of debate?


Quote:
So, why are you the center rather than me?

He made this clear in his opening statement.

Is your version of effective debate really one where you ask people to just continue to repeat themselves?

So far, the closest you've come to an argument is to agree with Sodhner.
__________________
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 30th April 2018, 04:34 PM   #374
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Sod,
- To me, it seems "overdone" to use the name all the time -- here and there seems more natural and friendly. Using the name now and then seems to be a way of indicating respect. My claim is that it is useful to the discussion to indicate respect for one's opponent.
- Just to throw in a caveat(?), the objective of my model of debate is to best seek the truth. My conscious objective is not to win -- though my subconscious objective often belies my conscious objective.

- So, why are you the center rather than me?
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
Well, that was explained in my opening statement. Are we starting over?

(Depending on how you define opening statement. The post where I laid out my reasoning, you know the one.)
Sod,
- But I think that all you said about that was, " I can prove this using math, physics, and basic logic."
__________________
"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 30th April 2018, 04:39 PM   #375
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,076
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
But I think that all you said about that was, " I can prove this using math, physics, and basic logic."
He used physics to describe the Hubble view of the universe. He used math to quantify the aspects of location. He used logic to draw an inference leading to his conclusion.

What have you done except stall, misdirect, and quibbling over meaningless salutations?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2018, 04:53 PM   #376
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,742
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Sod,
- But I think that all you said about that was, " I can prove this using math, physics, and basic logic."
Not that post, the one where I mentioned Hubble. There was more in that post.
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2018, 12:09 AM   #377
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,414
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Sod,
- But I think that all you said about that was, " I can prove this using math, physics, and basic logic."

Is that your idea of “laying out your reasoning”?

You’re just stalling again. Go back and look at the right post. It’s trivially easy to find, just search the thread for SOdhner’s posts; there are only 14 of them.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Mojo; 1st May 2018 at 12:15 AM.
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 1st May 2018, 04:23 AM   #378
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
- Where does that say why you would be at the center instead of me?
__________________
"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 1st May 2018, 04:38 AM   #379
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,076
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Where does that say why you would be at the center instead of me?
Fringe Debate, as opposed to Effective Debate, often deliberately misses the point. Pretend to be a brick wall and people will depart in frustration. Then you can claim victory. You were "persistent" in the face of opposition.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2018, 05:01 AM   #380
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,414
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Where does that say why you would be at the center instead of me?

Jabba, that was posted in response to you asking about the “distance variance”. Moving the goalposts like that is not honest or respectful.
__________________
"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 1st May 2018, 06:00 AM   #381
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,076
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Jabba, that was posted in response to you asking about the “distance variance”. Moving the goalposts like that is not honest or respectful.
It took me all of eight seconds (I timed it) to find the actual post S0dhner was referring to. It was obvious from the first couple of sentences that this was the content he wanted Jabba to read. Effective Debate puts the onus on each party to remember what his opponent's argument is. Fringe Debate goes around in circles with endless missteps and "clarifications." It's disrespectful because it wastes the opponent's time. It's dishonest because, in this case, we know Jabba can be very adept when he wants to at finding pertinent posts. Selective befuddlement is one of the evasive tricks he employs to prevent the debate from happening.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2018, 07:36 AM   #382
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,742
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Where does that say why you would be at the center instead of me?
It doesn't. That link was what you requested at the time, a source for the Hubble part. There was more to my argument. Go find the post where I first mentioned Hubble, it's in that one.

It seems like you agree with me so far though, that Earth is roughly at the center of the universe - and now we're just narrowing it down to me specifically. So that's some progress made!
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 1st May 2018, 08:14 AM   #383
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Jabba -

You previously said that the purpose of debate was to fully flesh out "both sides" of a question so that some unnamed neutral observer can read all of it and make a decision. Is that no longer true?...
LL,
- I'd just say that the main purpose of public debate is to effectively inform us, the public, regarding the important issues and decisions facing us. I claim that to be extremely important and that I have a lot of suggestions as to how best to do that.
__________________
"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 1st May 2018, 08:20 AM   #384
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,414
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- I'd just say that the main purpose of public debate is to effectively inform us, the public, regarding the important issues and decisions facing us. I claim that to be extremely important and that I have a lot of suggestions as to how best to do that.

How about providing some actual information, rather than your usual obfuscation and delaying tactics, then?
__________________
"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 1st May 2018, 08:21 AM   #385
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 13,071
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- I'd just say that the main purpose of public debate is to effectively inform us, the public, regarding the important issues and decisions facing us. I claim that to be extremely important and that I have a lot of suggestions as to how best to do that.
Then why exact does every one of your "Debate" threads turn into a rolling dumpster fire after you spend the entire time childishly stalling and avoiding?
__________________
"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 1st May 2018, 08:54 AM   #386
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
It doesn't. That link was what you requested at the time, a source for the Hubble part. There was more to my argument. Go find the post where I first mentioned Hubble, it's in that one.

It seems like you agree with me so far though, that Earth is roughly at the center of the universe - and now we're just narrowing it down to me specifically. So that's some progress made!
Sod,
- I found it!
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...
- I'll need to do some thinking about this -- but first, above you say, " I already showed that Earth is in the center of the universe." Did you also show that the earth is at the center of the universe?
- I know that sounds contrived(?) -- but to me, the nuances of astrophysics are critical and confusing -- how, for instance, could the speed of the light from the sun being encountered by a spaceship be the same when the ship is going towards the sun as when it's going away from the sun? And then, since speed is relative, why would the time on a spaceship going past the earth at 100,000 miles per second, slow down instead of time on the earth slowing down? I suspect that in the way I described the latter situation, the claim is not actually true...
__________________
"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 1st May 2018, 08:57 AM   #387
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,076
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I'd just say that the main purpose of public debate is to effectively inform us, the public, regarding the important issues and decisions facing us.
Declarative statements accomplish that, if all you're interested in is propositional knowledge. Debate, in contrast, tests ideas. A proposition is made, and reasoned debate tests it by various means to determine its quality. In the marketplace of ideas, skeptics are the consumer advocates; critical analysis is our laboratory. Quality in the marketplace of ideas means the proposition is based on a suitable amount of testable fact and sound logical inference or deduction. Where judgment enters the picture, quality means that judgment is well-informed and honestly reasoned.

You don't approach debate at all with these goals in mind. Your debates here have been solidly aimed at disparaging your critics and trying to show that they are dishonest and unfair, if not simply to spin the wheel and waste time. The authenticity of the Shroud of Turin isn't any sort of important issue. No decisions today face us that turn on its authenticity. It's a tangential issue of interest only to a few religious believers. But here it's something you can use to beat skeptics over the head with, because you believed it was something you could show they approached with improper inattention to scientific uncertainty. You told your friends you were going to go show those godless atheists how it was done. How does that achieve Effective Debate toward the end of meaningful, critical information? How is that not just Fringe Debate looking to justify a predetermined conclusion and achieve a personal or political goal at the expense of truth?

Similarly the claim to prove immortality via mathematics is a non-starter to anyone who knows mathematics. Your "proof" provides no insight, informs no great decisions, generates no meaningful discussion. It's simply and clearly wrong -- logically, mathematically, factually. It's quite obviously aimed at pretending there's an objective basis for what you freely admit was your angsy adolescent whim. How is that compatible with effectively informing the public, unless your idea of doing that is to "git them-thar skeptics" at all costs? Isn't all your practice here just a long-running example of your predetermined hatred of skepticism?

So while I agree that healthy public debate serves to promulgate and test ideas, especially if carried out in a spirit of critical analysis and civility, I don't see you as the master, exemplar, or even meaningful commentator on it. What makes you so special? It's not too hard to see the axe you're grinding.

Quote:
I claim that to be extremely important and that I have a lot of suggestions as to how best to do that.
Yes to the former, no to the latter. I haven't seen that any of your suggestions actually achieve any laudable goals. You piddle around with shaving keystrokes off "mandatory" salutations while missing most of the actual points in the actual debates -- rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, as the saying goes. Further, there is a huge gulf between what you prescribe for effective debate and what you actually do. The fact that you won't discuss those differences in this thread casts grave doubt on whether you really believe what you say and whether you actually care to debate honestly. You seem to have zero interest in self-improvement. You approach every question as if you knew it all already and have no need to learn, introspect, or change course. I and others have noted -- both here and elsewhere -- quite a number of practices you engage in while debating that seem aimed at preventing a meaningful scrutiny of proffered ideas, if not aimed at outright deception. Do you simply not care that this is the image you portray? Do you not realize that your flagrant, obvious practice of Fringe Debate undermines your claim to be some sort of debate guru?

No, you will have to convince me that you have anything meaningful to say on the subject of effective public debate.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2018, 09:02 AM   #388
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,742
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I found it!
Hooray!

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
above you say, " I already showed that Earth is in the center of the universe." Did you also show that the earth is at the center of the universe?
Yes, for my purposes those two phrases are interchangeable. More specifically, Earth is *extremely* close to the center, and could be said to be at the center within a quite reasonable margin of error. Of course, if we then narrow it down further the exact center is me.

It's like if there was a city at the geographical center of a country, but then you could narrow it down further and find the specific building that's really at the center.
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 1st May 2018, 09:06 AM   #389
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,076
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Did you also show that the earth is at the center of the universe?
Equivocation.

Effective Debate pays careful attention to words, but does not finely parse them to find some sort of hidden flaw. Fringe Debate plays word games to entrap the opponent or shift the meaning of the debate without having any clear reason for doing so, other than to appear to score meaningless rhetorical points.

Quote:
...but to me, the nuances of astrophysics are critical and confusing --
You don't need to belabor your inexpertise. The question is how Effective Debate should handle this. If you agree to the debate, you have the responsibility to qualify yourself with knowledge to be able to have it. If you are unwilling to do that, Effective Debate says you should conceded and step aside. You don't get to simultaneously pretend be ignorant and effective.

Quote:
how, for instance...
And you're venturing off on tangents in order to distract from your inability and unwillingness to address the argument on the table. Effective Debate does not allow irrelevant tangents, no matter how "folksy" or fun they might be. Effective Debate recognizes and accepts that a debate is necessarily adversarial and does not allow that footing to be suddenly recast as some sort of collaboration or coffee-house chatter.

Further, no one cares for a lengthy recitation of your unfamiliarity and confusion with the topic. You've already established that you are not competent in the relevant science. But others are. You're applying the Fringe Debate tactic of side-stepping the effects of your ignorance by implying they should not be held against you, that these are natural and inescapable effects. No. We don't care. Address the topic of the debate, please.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2018, 09:08 AM   #390
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,076
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
...the specific building that's really at the center.
And the specific room, and the specific floor tile in that room, and the specific terrazzo fleck, and so forth. It would be helpful to stipulate that the error between the factual center and the "measured" center could be virtually zero.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2018, 09:09 AM   #391
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,614
Effective Debate thus far:

S0dner
Proposition -> Physics -> Math -> Logic -> Conclusion -> Q.E.D.

Jabba
- Are we following the ground rules?
- How should I refer to you?
- What are you talking about?
- Can you teach me remedial physics, math, and logic?
- I can't find your proposition, will you remind me what it is?

Last edited by theprestige; 1st May 2018 at 09:15 AM.
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 1st May 2018, 09:23 AM   #392
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,614
Jabba, S0dner's proposition is purposefully sophomoric. It is (or should be) trivially refutable using convenience sources on the Internet, by anyone with ten minutes to spare on a web search, and ten more minutes to spare synthesizing the search results into a counter-argument.

For this reason, it is almost an ideal demonstration problem for testing Effective Debate. No special expertise is necessary. S0dner's argument requires none, nor does the rebuttal. You are squandering a perfect opportunity to set aside all of the baggage and confounding factors, and just roll out a simple demonstration of the process. The outcome of the debate doesn't even matter, in this case. Only the demonstration of the process.

If your debate method truly were effective, you would have rebutted S0dner's original argument by now, and the two of you would currently be debating one of the supporting points either of the argument or the rebuttal.

Instead, you've gotten bogged down on the name of your colleague, forgotten to set any ground rules, and actually managed to lose track of the argument altogether. What part of effective debate is this?
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 1st May 2018, 09:30 AM   #393
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,076
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If your debate method truly were effective, you would have rebutted S0dner's original argument by now...
I could probably refute him in about ten words, just to put things in perspective. But yes, the exercise is to see how Effective Debate words. Or whether it works, since we'd want to iterative refine it. Your previous post speaks volumes eloquently. Jabba's done absolutely nothing except putter about getting ready to have the debate. This mirrors his other debates, where years hence he's still trying to "organize" it.

What's worse is that in this thread he could legitimately say that it's proper to talk about having debates rather than actually have them. But he won't talk about having the debates. Look at all the people who have -- on-topic in this thread -- pointed out Jabba's errors, inconsistencies, and annoyances in a timely manner, only to be completely ignored.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2018, 09:38 AM   #394
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...
Sod,
- But, the same is true for me.
__________________
"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 1st May 2018, 09:45 AM   #395
beren
Graduate Poster
 
beren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 1,155
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Sod,
- But, the same is true for me.
4 days, 1 hour, 36 minutes.
__________________
Drive-by snark artist.
Deep thinker as long as I can do it quickly with minimal effort.
Band wagon pile-oner
beren 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 1st May 2018, 09:48 AM   #396
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,511
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2018, 09:53 AM   #397
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,742
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Sod,
- But, the same is true for me.
Jabba,

I've performed measurements across the United States, in England, Scotland, Austria, Hungary, etc. and had the same results. Regardless of my location the result is the same. What are the odds of this? Given that the number of different points of reference in the universe is essentially infinite I would say the odds are virtually zero - that indicates this is a significant finding.
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 1st May 2018, 09:59 AM   #398
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 5,274
Jabba, your old daddy told you, “Never give up.”

But did he really put it that simple-mindedly? No nuances, no caveats, no conditions? Well, he knew his son better than anybody else; maybe he realized the limits on how much you could understand; no doubt he had his own limitations. It doesn’t matter now.

You gave up here a long time ago, whether you admit it to yourself or not. Your small repertoire of tactics is worn down to the bare metal; your shroud of obfuscation is so thin that anybody can see through it – and everybody does. Absolutely no one agrees with you, because no one can: your beliefs and your attempts to justify them defy intelligent commentary; they simply don’t rise to a level where reason can be applied.

The nature of the internet makes it easier for you to keep recycling your contentions than a live debate would, and I think that’s what fools you into supposing that you haven’t given up. These soundless screens express too little; they aren’t really human interactions.

Back upthread a ways you unbuttoned enough – heck, for a minute you became human enough -- to describe some of your beliefs and a few of your experiences with the super-duper-natural. It made depressing reading. You’ve built and still inhabit a ramshackle hut that would disgrace a Hooverville (a Wooverville?). What on earth could frighten you so much that you take shelter under a flimsy covering of belief, mere superstition and nothing more?

I’m starting to sound like your father, or maybe your uncle. Helluva note, a man of 75 pleading with another man of 75 to grow up.
__________________
Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
sackett 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 1st May 2018, 10:11 AM   #399
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,414
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Sod,
- I found it!


- I'll need to do some thinking about this -- but first, above you say, " I already showed that Earth is in the center of the universe." Did you also show that the earth is at the center of the universe?
- I know that sounds contrived(?) -- but to me, the nuances of astrophysics are critical and confusing -- how, for instance, could the speed of the light from the sun being encountered by a spaceship be the same when the ship is going towards the sun as when it's going away from the sun? And then, since speed is relative, why would the time on a spaceship going past the earth at 100,000 miles per second, slow down instead of time on the earth slowing down? I suspect that in the way I described the latter situation, the claim is not actually true...

A classic example of Jabba’s ‘effective debate’: “you make a good point, but I’m going to avoid discussing it.”
__________________
"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 1st May 2018, 10:24 AM   #400
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 13,071
Jabba,

Under "effective debate" what should happen when someone is factually wrong?

I want an answer (he says knowing full well within a metaphysical certainty I won't get one.)

Two people hold two contradictory opinions to the point that one of them has to be wrong. There's no space for compromise, no space for "point of views."

A drawing of a shape is put on on a board. Ted says it's a perfect square, Steve says it's a perfect circle. No weasel room for some kind of squared circled, neither one of the means their shape is metaphorical or symbolic, there is no "out" for one of them.

A question with an objective right or wrong answer has been asked and two opinions that cannot both be true have been presented.

How in "effective debate" do we address this?
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 1st May 2018 at 10:30 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
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 09:58 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.