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 14th December 2017, 10:24 AM   #81
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 74,687
I'm just going to leave this here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com....php?p=9258648

Quote:
1) I'm convinced that the only way to actually get somewhere in our debate is to slow down and zoom in.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com....php?p=9252969

Quote:
- Have you looked into my discussions about effective debate? I have long discussions about it on both my websites. This is what I've been developing, off and on, for over forty years.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... 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 14th December 2017, 11:21 AM   #82
carlitos
"ms divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,524
Actually Effective Written Debate/Effective Public Debate

- whaddaya mean we, kimosabe?

That long list from Jabba is nothing but psychological projectionWP. His nonsense certainly isnt enough to send me into fight or flight mode. I could probably play his boring, repetitive list posts to help me go to sleep at night.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Last edited by carlitos; 14th December 2017 at 11:23 AM.
carlitos 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 14th December 2017, 11:38 AM   #83
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 12,634
Jabba, your ideas about effective debate may (I doubt it, but I'll concede that they may) be useful for looking at matters of opinion. Debate in general is a useful tool when thinking about opinions.

Should the atom bomb have been dropped on Japan in 1945, should F1 get rid of 'grid girls', is chocolate ice cream more delicious than strawberry ice cream?

All of these are matters of opinion, not matters of fact. There are no right or wrong answers, but there are people who will argue eloquently and vehemently for one side or another. Debate is a good way of allowing different people to test their ideas against others, to hear other people's points of view, and to seek to change minds.

However, debate is not the right way to look at matters of fact. You might be the most persuasive speaker in the world, able to win crowds over to your way of thinking easily, but if you are on the side of a flat earth, it doesn't matter if you win the debate. You're still wrong on a matter of fact.

Shroud authenticity is a matter of fact. Immortality is a matter of fact. Debate is the wrong tool for matters of fact.
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2017, 11:45 AM   #84
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,624
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
John,
The basic problem is that once we humans slip into debate, our reflexes are all wrong for trying to find the truth. Thats how we humans are. Once into a debate, we automatically slip into a fight/flight mode and become oblivious to any truth- seeking urge we might previously have had, and seek only to win or at least, to avoid losing.
But note that two things happen here. We slip into a fight/flight mode; but also, we lose all sight of our seek-the-truth mode. It isnt like the two objectives both have our attention, just that one of them is stronger its like one of them slips entirely below our radar We zone out.
Science, engineering, and the law have developed forms of debate that are extremely effective at solving problems. Needless to say, those disciplines do not use anything like your idea of good debate.
theprestige 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 14th December 2017, 11:48 AM   #85
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,624
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
should F1 get rid of 'grid girls'
No. It should leave the 'grid girls' settings alone, and simply access the CMOS setup.
theprestige 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 14th December 2017, 04:25 PM   #86
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,241
Apparently ignoring your opponents posts and pretending their arguments don’t exist is a big part of “effective debate” in the Jabbaverse. Fortunately any neutral audiences will be able to see it for what it is.
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2017, 11:01 PM   #87
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,091
Well, Jabba, let us examine your claims in some detail...

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
1. Start doing everything we can to undermine effective presentation of evidence by the other side, and to overstate our own case. And,
Agreed. You do that at every turn, yet take it a step further and present no evidence at all.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
2. Start placing a supreme premium upon quick answers.
Wrong. Over the past 5 or so years we have become accustomed to getting no answer at all from you to questions raised. Thus, most folks simply post brief replies to your arguments in the certain knowledge that said replies will be ignored. Note that I said "most". There are some who take the time to respond in huge detail but that is irrelevant because you ignore that too.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
– More specifically yet, in regard to #1, we
1.1. Insult our opponents (We have numerous ways of doing this – both overtly and covertly.)
Then why do you consistently do it?
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
1.2. Refuse to yield the floor.
Again, you take it a step further, not only refusing to "yield the floor", but refusing to acknowledge that any floor exists at all bar the fragment upon which you stand.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
1.3. Refuse to answer our opponents questions.
Agreed. So why do you keep on doing it? Is it that you hope those questions will disappear if you simply ignore them?
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
1.4. Pretend to answer their questions while ‘dancing around them’ instead?
Yes. Why do you do it all the time?
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
1.5. State opinion as fact.
And that one too. Why is it bad to do such a thing for everyone except you, who has been doing so for years?
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
1.6. Raise our voices.
Irrelevant. Nobody here in this thread or others has done so. The problem is that you seem to perceive any rebuttal of your ideas as insults. Besides, are your ideas really that fragile?
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
1.7. Grasp at straws (while pretending they’re hawsers). And,
Of all participants in this and other threads, you are pointing the finger? It is to laugh.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
1.8. Lie.
No comment to make on the number of times you have been caught out? Well...

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
– More specifically yet, in regard to #2. Because of this new set, we don’t have time to
2.1. Understand our opponent’s argument.
2.2. Really understand our own argument.
Oh we understand your arguments the problem is that you do not.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
2.3. Think twice.
Thinking once might be a start don't you agree?
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
2.4. Step back from the canvas.
That is just a trite meaningless sentence fragment.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
2.5. Look before we leap.
Redundant given 2.4 of your current opus.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
2.6. Say what we mean.
Really? So when you clearly mean "soul" why don't you say so?
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
2.7. Keep from going off on tangents defending things we didn’t mean.
No, that is not what has happened in your threads. Tangents have indeed developed to correct the claims you make to know what respondents actually mean as opposed to what they actually said.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
2.8. Realize we’re wrong.
2.9. Admit we’re wrong.
Given that you have never done so, is this not a hypocritical position for you to take?
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
2.10. Cool off.
Is anyone getting hot under the collar in any of your threads? I think not.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
2.11. Apologize.
Apology accepted, just stop doing it.

Now, I have a couple of predictions for you Jabba.

1. You will yet again ignore this reply, with the exception that...
2. You will report this post as an insult simply because I have had the temerity to disagree with you.

The reality is that your post is presented as a critique of discussions on this forum, but it isn't. It reads as though it is simply a precis of your personal posting style
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...

Last edited by abaddon; 14th December 2017 at 11:05 PM.
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2017, 12:31 AM   #88
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Science, engineering, and the law have developed forms of debate that are extremely effective at solving problems. Needless to say, those disciplines do not use anything like your idea of good debate.
Jabba, If you live a thousand years, you will not have convinced a single one of your interlocutors because you don't listen to anything they say.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2017, 08:44 AM   #89
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
Jabba, your ideas about effective debate may (I doubt it, but I'll concede that they may) be useful for looking at matters of opinion. Debate in general is a useful tool when thinking about opinions.

Should the atom bomb have been dropped on Japan in 1945, should F1 get rid of 'grid girls', is chocolate ice cream more delicious than strawberry ice cream?

All of these are matters of opinion, not matters of fact. There are no right or wrong answers, but there are people who will argue eloquently and vehemently for one side or another. Debate is a good way of allowing different people to test their ideas against others, to hear other people's points of view, and to seek to change minds.

However, debate is not the right way to look at matters of fact. You might be the most persuasive speaker in the world, able to win crowds over to your way of thinking easily, but if you are on the side of a flat earth, it doesn't matter if you win the debate. You're still wrong on a matter of fact.

Shroud authenticity is a matter of fact. Immortality is a matter of fact. Debate is the wrong tool for matters of fact.
Agatha,
- Your comment above is probably the most positive response I'm going to get on this topic...
- However, "debate" may not be the best word to use, but it's obviously important in a democratic society that the voters be well-informed about the facts. We voters have different opinions about the facts -- we need to hear the opinions and factual support for those opinions so that we can make up our own minds about the truth.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2017, 08:47 AM   #90
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: 27,704
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
We voters have different opinions about the facts -- we need to hear the opinions and factual support for those opinions so that we can make up our own minds about the truth.
You may note from this that you're requiring that facts should inform the debate, rather than be derived from the debate. That alone should point you towards a major flaw in your stated intention of determining facts by debate: it is inherently a circular process.

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 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 15th December 2017, 08:58 AM   #91
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 12,634
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Agatha,
- Your comment above is probably the most positive response I'm going to get on this topic...
- However, "debate" may not be the best word to use, but it's obviously important in a democratic society that the voters be well-informed about the facts. We voters have different opinions about the facts -- we need to hear the opinions and factual support for those opinions so that we can make up our own minds about the truth.
If you think my comment was positive, or is in support of your theory, you might want to read past the first sentence.

Have all the debate you want about points of view or opinions, people might be swayed into a different opinion by a persuasive and well-evidencd argument.

But you aren't arguing for an opinion or a point of view in your Shroud thread or your Immortality thread, you are trying to prove (or "essentially prove") a fact - an objective or scientific truth. Science is not a democracy, nor are truth or facts subject to opinions. Light travels at 299,792,458 metres per second, no matter how many people vote otherwise.
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2017, 08:58 AM   #92
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,624
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Agatha,
- Your comment above is probably the most positive response I'm going to get on this topic...
- However, "debate" may not be the best word to use, but it's obviously important in a democratic society that the voters be well-informed about the facts. We voters have different opinions about the facts -- we need to hear the opinions and factual support for those opinions so that we can make up our own minds about the truth.
No, Jabba. You're not a champion of civil society. You are not on a noble quest to bring truth to the world.
theprestige 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 15th December 2017, 01:57 PM   #93
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,419
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
If you think my comment was positive, or is in support of your theory, you might want to read past the first sentence.

I think reading past the first sentence is against Jabba's rules for Actually Effective Written Debate.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2017, 02:45 PM   #94
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,641
Every time I read Jabba's rules and justification for AEWD, it reinforces two things:
- the "rules" were written because Jabba was frustrated at not winning arguments, so he's tried to codify rules to constrain the skills of the other party; and
- he still thinks debate is about finding facts, which it isn't. It's a competition of rhetoric. Any discussion on Jabba's methodology is fundamentally flawed on this basis, as the method is being misrepresented.
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2017, 03:50 PM   #95
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14,782
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
I think reading past the first sentence is against Jabba's rules for Actually Effective Written Debate.
Jabba has stated more than once that he often only reads the first line or two of other people's posts.

But what he really does, what he really thinks, and what his real goals are when he posts remain for me a matter of pure speculation.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2018, 07:46 AM   #96
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
- I'll try some more.
- To what extent do you think that public debate is effective?
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2018, 08:33 AM   #97
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
- Currently, if we humans are emotionally committed to one side of an argument, we have almost no ability to objectively listen to -- and judge -- the other side. That's the way we are.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2018, 08:35 AM   #98
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: 27,704
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Currently, if we humans are emotionally committed to one side of an argument, we have almost no ability to objectively listen to -- and judge -- the other side.
Yes, I can think of a classic example of that.

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 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 18th April 2018, 08:52 AM   #99
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Yes, I can think of a classic example of that.

Dave
Dave,
- Can you perceive such a tendency in yourself?
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2018, 08:56 AM   #100
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: 27,704
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Can you perceive such a tendency in yourself?
Very much so. The primary challenge for any skeptic is to understand that tendency and compensate for it. This, however, rather tends to undermine the supposition that public debate is a means of arriving at facts, because those who don't recognise their prejudices and allow for them will simply select what evidence they want to hear and ignore the rest. The problem is not in transmitting good information; it's in having it successfully received.

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 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 18th April 2018, 09:40 AM   #101
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,270
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Currently, if we humans are emotionally committed to one side of an argument, we have almost no ability to objectively listen to -- and judge -- the other side. That's the way we are.
Jabba, do you think you display this tendency?
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 18th April 2018, 09:53 AM   #102
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 13,146
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Can you perceive such a tendency in yourself?
If over a dozen people were telling me over and over that my argument was nothing but that for over five years I'd at least consider the possibility.
__________________
"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 18th April 2018, 10:12 AM   #103
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,624
Many professions have developed methods of debate that are demonstrably effective at finding facts, solving problems, and even changing opinions. And none of those debate methods look anything like what Jabba proposes.

Conversely, the method Jabba proposes is demonstrably ineffective. It is essential that if your new invention purports to be a wheel, it must actually roll.*












---
* Yes, that's a reinventing-the-wheel joke

Last edited by theprestige; 18th April 2018 at 10:13 AM.
theprestige 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 18th April 2018, 11:14 AM   #104
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,419
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Currently, if we humans are emotionally committed to one side of an argument, we have almost no ability to objectively listen to -- and judge -- the other side.

Some are so emotionally committed to one side of an augment that they are unable to objectively judge either side. And the problem is inevitably worse where it concerns their own side.
__________________
"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 18th April 2018, 11:48 AM   #105
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
- Currently, if we humans are emotionally committed to one side of an argument, we have almost no ability to objectively listen to -- and judge -- the other side. That's the way we are.

But, jabba, you've stated that the purpose of your "debate" style isn't to objectively listen to or judge any other style. You've said that two representatives on either side should just debate for some unseen objective audience. You never really explained where this audience would come from, how the representatives would be chosen or why any issue should have only two sides.

So whatever the faults in the current system, it works better than your version.

Even so, Kialo lets you explore subtopics of subtopics with audience interest determining both what all the branches are and which branches are worth exploring. You should check it out. It's the closest thing to your ideas on the subject of debate that appears to be working.
__________________
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 18th April 2018, 02:12 PM   #106
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Very much so. The primary challenge for any skeptic is to understand that tendency and compensate for it. This, however, rather tends to undermine the supposition that public debate is a means of arriving at facts, because those who don't recognise their prejudices and allow for them will simply select what evidence they want to hear and ignore the rest...
- Exactly. But could it be possible to correct for this tendency? And, if we think that it might be possible, shouldn't we (someone) be addressing that possibility?

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
The problem is not in transmitting good information; it's in having it successfully received.

Dave
- I would say that we err very much in both directions.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2018, 02:13 PM   #107
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Jabba, do you think you display this tendency?
Robo,
- Yes.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2018, 03:33 PM   #108
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,641
I've said it before and I'll say it again:


Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
Every time I read Jabba's rules and justification for AEWD, it reinforces two things:
- the "rules" were written because Jabba was frustrated at not winning arguments, so he's tried to codify rules to constrain the skills of the other party; and
- he still thinks debate is about finding facts, which it isn't. It's a competition of rhetoric. Any discussion on Jabba's methodology is fundamentally flawed on this basis, as the method is being misrepresented.
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 01:14 AM   #109
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: 27,704
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Exactly. But could it be possible to correct for this tendency?
Yes, it is possible; the method is known as rational skepticism. Many people round here practise it.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
-And, if we think that it might be possible, shouldn't we (someone) be addressing that possibility?
We are. You, very clearly, are not; and your latest excuse for failing to do so, it appears, is to feign mystification at the possibility that such a thing as rational skepticism could possibly exist, and demand that someone re-invent it.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I would say that we err very much in both directions.
And I would say that I understand very clearly what you are trying to say and do, clearly enough to understand the fatal flaws in your mothodology, in this and in other areas (yes, we both know what those areas are); and I note that you have not, in five years of debate, abandoned or assimilated a single element of kowledge or understanding. This is not the pot calling the kettle black; it's the pot calling the mirror black.

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 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 19th April 2018, 06:17 AM   #110
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
If over a dozen people were telling me over and over that my argument was nothing but that for over five years I'd at least consider the possibility.
Joe,
- How could I have stumbled upon immortality, when all the experts in the relevant math and science have not? Somehow, I must be wrong! But so far, I can't figure out why -- and in that other thread, I either disagree with the arguments against my claim, or just don't understand them.
- And then, everyone on that thread -- except for me -- is a committed skeptic. I'm committed in the other direction, but trying to see your arguments in the best possible light...

- So, in this thread, I'm claiming that
1. We humans should be able to design a format and "ambience" to solve our problem with debate.
2. We need to solve it.
3. The Internet provides a significant new opportunity to do that. And,
4. This website could at least begin the process.
-
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 06:22 AM   #111
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,270
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Somehow, I must be wrong! But so far, I can't figure out why
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
we have almost no ability to objectively listen to -- and judge -- the other side.
I wonder if there could be a correlation?
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 19th April 2018, 06:26 AM   #112
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,241
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Joe,
- How could I have stumbled upon immortality, when all the experts in the relevant math and science have not? Somehow, I must be wrong! But so far, I can't figure out why -- and in that other thread, I either disagree with the arguments against my claim, or just don't understand them.
- And then, everyone on that thread -- except for me -- is a committed skeptic. I'm committed in the other direction, but trying to see your arguments in the best possible light...

- So, in this thread, I'm claiming that
1. We humans should be able to design a format and "ambience" to solve our problem with debate.
2. We need to solve it.
3. The Internet provides a significant new opportunity to do that. And,
4. This website could at least begin the process.
-
You can't figure out why because you refuse to consider the possibility that you are wrong. You've been shown by skeptics, statisticians, and everyone else exactly how and why you are wrong, and rather than considering the possibility, you simply ignore them and pretend that you are still right. The only thing that needs solving is your desperate need to be immortal.
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 06:28 AM   #113
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Yes, it is possible; the method is known as rational skepticism. Many people round here practise it...
- Wouldn't it be more rational -- and functional -- to avoid insulting your opponents, or his ideas? What skeptic around here avoids insulting their opponents -- let alone, their ideas?
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 06:32 AM   #114
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,270
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Wouldn't it be more rational -- and functional -- to avoid insulting your opponents, or his ideas? What skeptic around here avoids insulting their opponents -- let alone, their ideas?
Would you define ignoring direct replies and rebuttals to arguments as insulting behavior?
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 19th April 2018, 06:37 AM   #115
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,241
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Wouldn't it be more rational -- and functional -- to avoid insulting your opponents, or his ideas? What skeptic around here avoids insulting their opponents -- let alone, their ideas?
Pointing out where you are wrong is not insulting. Showing your ideas to be wrong is not insulting. On the other hand, continuing to insist you are correct despite having had your argument shredded in multiple ways, by multiple posters, over the course of multiple years is insulting. You are in no position to complain about your critics being insulting.
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 06:38 AM   #116
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: 27,704
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Wouldn't it be more rational -- and functional -- to avoid insulting your opponents, or his ideas?
Jabba, you have been incessantly insulting over the full five years of the immortality thread, by repeatedly insisting that you're trying to teach the ignorant and that the only reason everyone disagrees with you is that nobody's clever enough to follow your arguments. If you'd made the slightest attempt to avoid being insulting, you'd get more polite treatment in return.

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 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 19th April 2018, 06:45 AM   #117
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by jond View Post
You can't figure out why because you refuse to consider the possibility that you are wrong. You've been shown by skeptics, statisticians, and everyone else exactly how and why you are wrong, and rather than considering the possibility, you simply ignore them and pretend that you are still right. The only thing that needs solving is your desperate need to be immortal.
jond,
- I have often admitted (in this forum) that I was wrong about something, and I've asked lots of questions trying to understand the claims against mine. IMO, much of the time, that I ask these questions, I don't get direct answers -- I get complaints and very indirect answers (that really don't help).
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 06:51 AM   #118
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Jabba, you have been incessantly insulting over the full five years of the immortality thread, by repeatedly insisting that you're trying to teach the ignorant and that the only reason everyone disagrees with you is that nobody's clever enough to follow your arguments. If you'd made the slightest attempt to avoid being insulting, you'd get more polite treatment in return.

Dave
Dave,
- Can you give me some examples?
- (Note that I'm not going off topic. The first rule in my debate model is that everyone be friendly and respectful.)
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 06:55 AM   #119
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,241
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- I have often admitted (in this forum) that I was wrong about something, and I've asked lots of questions trying to understand the claims against mine. IMO, much of the time, that I ask these questions, I don't get direct answers -- I get complaints and very indirect answers (that really don't help).
- You have never admitted being wrong about anything of substance.
- You are always given very explicit explanations as to where you are going wrong. Both about statistics, and about logic and reason.
- Frequently, you write long strings of text (every fringe reset), and people respond with point by point refutations. And EVERY SINGLE TIME you ignore those point by point refutations, claiming you can only read one line.
- That you can't understand many of the answers you get says much more about you than it does about your critics.
- That you insist you know much more about everything than your critics and then claim "you don't understand" says a lot more about you than it does about your critics.
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 06:57 AM   #120
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 13,146
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Can you give me some examples?
Every post you've ever made.
__________________
"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
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 09:19 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.