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 24th April 2018, 05:53 AM   #201
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 28,884
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- IMO, effective debate means that both sides are able to fully present their own sides to a mixed jury.
How many times?

Quote:
The validity of the "facts" and reasoning they present is to be continually evaluated and voted upon.
Facts aren't determined by voting but that does explain why you use dishonest rhetorical tricks rather than anything substantive. You want to win the debate regardless of the truth of your proposition.

Last edited by RoboTimbo; 24th April 2018 at 05:55 AM.
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 24th April 2018, 06:18 AM   #202
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,358
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But then, I still need to answer one objection at a time -- I simply can't press 300 lbs -- and, that's how my "effective debate" would theoretically work. Slow, but (somewhat) steadily. Let's see what happens.
We've seen what happens. Your plan for "effective debate" is to bog down the discussion in Item One so that items two through seven never get addressed. Then you insinuate that only Item One is a problem, and that if you could manage to clear up the problem with that then the rest of your argument would be okay. Then when finally cornered on something, you'll just repeat your claim vis-a-vis Item One and around in circles we go -- literally for years.

No, we're not going to do that. You're not being asked to do anything even remotely difficult, so quit whining about having to lift 300 pounds. We're all sick of your incessant complaints and your incessant attempts to blame your critics for allegedly treating you so shabbily.

Quote:
And, for the moment, you say something immediately above, to which, I would like to take exception -- before going back to the list...
No. Please do as I ask and complete the list so that we have some outline of your planned argument.

Quote:
This certainly won't be a quick process...
With you it never is, and that's entirely your fault. You try the patience of your critics until they give up on you and go away, whereupon you claim victory. And we end up covering the same ground endlessly because you refuse to listen to your critics and respond to what they say.

That's how your trick works. You think that because your debates extend into tens of thousands of posts, you've managed to be effective and thorough. But no, your debates are absurdly long because you won't let them proceed to completion.

Quote:
...but my claim is that with a large mixed jury/audience, we should be able to put sub-issues behind us, little by little.
No, that's not your plan. Your plan is to focus one tiny morsel, paring it away until you can find some niggling detail on which to obsess for days or weeks, fomenting endless, pointless exchanges and ignoring entirely all the other six ways that you treat your critics obnoxiously.

I'm not going to play your game, Jabba. I've played it for years, and here and now in this thread we're going to talk about why your method for effective debate is an offensive travesty and we're going to do it my way. You don't get to forestall a critique of your evasive and dishonest method by employing it.

Quote:
There is no one in our group that I think agrees with me...
There is no one anywhere who agrees with you. That should have told you something a long time ago. It's not just skeptics who see through your dishonesty, and you know we have evidence of that.

Quote:
The few people who have seemed to agree over the years have been quickly ridden out of town on a rail.
Right, it's always your critics' fault that you can't make headway in a debate. Quit whining like a petulant prima donna and do as I ask.
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 24th April 2018, 07:08 AM   #203
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,358
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
IMO, effective debate means that both sides are able to fully present their own sides to a mixed jury. The validity of the "facts" and reasoning they present is to be continually evaluated and voted upon.
You seem fond of the courtroom metaphors, but it's obvious you've never been in a courtroom or know much about how they really work.

The first thing that happens after the jury is empaneled is that each side is expected to summarize his case. The jury first hears a broad-strokes version of the evidence that's to be heard and the lines of reasoning to be employed in supporting or refuting it. You're deathly afraid of those because it's at the broad-strokes level that most of your claims fail. You clearly weren't prepared for someone to put into one place all the ways you abuse your critics in a debate, which is almost certainly why I had to try several times -- as I always must -- to get you to even acknowledge it, much less respond to it. And you have no broad-strokes defense. You want to interrupt opposing counsel when he's only halfway through the first sentence of his opening remarks and quibble over it, hoping that the jury never gets to hear the rest of the evidence against you.

And before the case even goes to trial, each party poses through the court a set of interrogatories designed to determine to what degree each party will need to try the relevant facts. One party's unwillingness to participate in the interrogatory procedure and answer them completely doesn't generally endear them to the court. Similarly each party is limited in its ability to burden the other with questions to which an answer is compelled. For reference, the federal limit is 25. I've asked you seven.

A courtroom debate has several mechanisms to keep it moving along. You would fare very poorly in a courtroom.

You don't get to bog down in irrelevant detail. The judge is empowered to act on your opponent's objection over materiality and substance, and stop your line of argument if it has no relevant point. A court's time is never to be wasted the way you do in irrelevant detail.

You don't get to keep questioning the evidence until you get the answer you want. The judge can act on your opponent's objection and declare a topic already answered. A court doesn't have to hear the same line of questioning over and over the way you extend your debates.

You don't get to escape cross-examination. If you present evidence, your critics have an equal opportunity to challenge it, and you have only a limited opportunity thereafter to rehabilitate it. (Some jurisdictions allow redirect, but not recross.) A court doesn't have to exhaustively try evidence before moving on to new evidence, the way you insist is "effective." Similarly if you choose not to cross-examine evidence against you, you don't get to pretend that the jury didn't hear it. Your disinterest in the opponent's case hurts only you.

All these mechanisms and more are made to ensure debate in court proceeds to an actual verdict and doesn't simply wallow in repetition and lawyerly shenanigans for years and years. That's a better example of effective debate than anything you're proposing or anything you practice. And of course you get to object if you think you're being treated poorly or unfairly -- but you still have to prove it. You don't get to object simply because you're being disagreed with vigorously.

And when the verdict is rendered, you don't have the right to have an appeal heard just because you lost. You certainly don't get to call the jury stupid or closed-minded and appeal on those grounds. And you don't get to appeal because the rules were not skewed enough in your favor.

You've had your chance to present your argument to people you can't accuse of ideological bias. They saw through your silly games and your deceptive intent in less than five pages and basically told you to go away. Don't pretend like the problems with your arguments and the style with which you mount them has anything to do with the alleged bias of your audience. You don't actually want a neutral jury. What you're really after is someone who will give you uncritical, unconditional approval like you had back in your Shroudie days pandering to the Christians who didn't care what tactics you used or whether you were actually right. All they cared about is that you put a pseudo-intellectual veneer on something they believed emotionally, and it was plausible enough for them at the time.
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 24th April 2018, 07:12 AM   #204
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,599
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Where to begin?

First, you simply ignore everyone who doesn't already agree with you, disagrees only slightly, or who doesn't defend you against your critics. Effective debate means you will be confronted with valid facts and lines of reasoning that dispute yours. You will be expected to address them instead of making lame excuses for why you don't have to. ...
- I have addressed many of the claims many times.
- Please give an example of a claim I have not addressed and the lame excuse I've used to avoid it.
__________________
"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 24th April 2018, 07:23 AM   #205
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,358
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I have addressed many of the claims many times.
- Please give an example of a claim I have not addressed and the lame excuse I've used to avoid it.
Quit playing games, Jabba.
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 24th April 2018, 07:25 AM   #206
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,578
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I have addressed many of the claims many times.
- Please give an example of a claim I have not addressed and the lame excuse I've used to avoid it.
The claim that your argument commits the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy is a classic one; at various times you've claimed it doesn't apply to you because you're specially chosen by virtue of being yourself (which is in itself simply a re-statement of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy), insisted that you really believe it doesn't apply to you despite the fact that you don't have an actual counter to it, and asked whether we could just look at the rest of your argument and admit that apart from this one utterly fatal flaw it has some merits (which, of course, it doesn't because of all its other fatal flaws). These are all extremely lame excuses.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2018, 07:30 AM   #207
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 28,884
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Please give an example of a claim I have not addressed
Texas Sharpshooter fallacy

Quote:
and the lame excuse I've used to avoid it.
Could you have come up with a lamer one than...
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
if, the sharpshooter fallacy doesn't apply[/u].
As one of too many to count.
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 24th April 2018, 07:54 AM   #208
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,090
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I have addressed many of the claims many times.
- Please give an example of a claim I have not addressed and the lame excuse I've used to avoid it.

On the previous page of the thread are a whole bunch of points made by JayUtah that you failed to address. Your lame excuse was that you are too feeble to address more than one point per post.

And it’s lame because you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are perfectly capable of making multiple points in a single post.
__________________
"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 24th April 2018, 08:01 AM   #209
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 26,629
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Please give an example of a claim I have not addressed and the lame excuse I've used to avoid it.
We know you're quite capable of researching this and providing an anthology of such examples. You can stop ignoring everyone any time you want.
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 24th April 2018, 08:17 AM   #210
JimOfAllTrades
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 403
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- There is no one in our group that I think agrees with me... The few people who have seemed to agree over the years have been quickly ridden out of town on a rail.
No, this isn't correct and strongly implies (or outright states) that they weren't given a fair chance. That isn't true and BTW is quite disrespectful of the people you accuse of doing this.

What happened is that those people were shown to be wrong, or arguing something that did not actually bear on your main point at all, and so they left.
JimOfAllTrades 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 24th April 2018, 08:41 AM   #211
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,845
Originally Posted by Filippo Lippi View Post
Hey Jabba, care to remind us when someone here agreed to follow all of your rules for effective debate? How do you think you did?
Hey Jabba, please remind us what happened when all of your preconditions for effective debate were agreed to?
__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell
Filippo Lippi is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2018, 08:42 AM   #212
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,358
Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades View Post
What happened is that those people were shown to be wrong, or arguing something that did not actually bear on your main point at all, and so they left.
Specifically they had other agendas that had nothing to do with the thread topic. Jabba perceived them as sympathetic because they typically went after his critics, albeit for reasons that fit their agendas and not his. Jabba interpreted that as defending him. In the one case I'm thinking of, the individual explicitly said several times he also disputed Jabba's argument in the strongest terms. In no way can that be counted as a defense.

And yes, there have been people from time to time who have agreed with Jabba on various points. That's to be expected, as his views on some of the subjects he debates are widely shared irrespective of whether they can be proven objectively. The social engineering methods Jabba uses to avoid actual debate depend heavily on a victim complex, hence it's imperative to Jabba's posture to claim that people who agree with him -- and are properly refuted -- have been poorly treated, as he claims he has been poorly treated. Not everyone explains why they are unwilling to pursue a topic, and this leaves it open for Jabba to tell the story his way.
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 24th April 2018, 08:50 AM   #213
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,828
I've pointed out the irony on multiple occasions that stripped of its performance art Jabba's base claim, that there is a non-material aspect to his existence that will in some way or some form survive the point where his physical body stops functioning... is an amazingly common idea, one that forms one of if not the strongest tenet of most all religious belief structures and is probably agreed with on a very base level by... most people in the world.

If at any point Jabba had simply dropped the spinning plates and claim a simple religious belief in a soul... he would have sort of "won" for very specific definitions of the term "won." His opponents still would have agreed with him but it would have made his claim no functionally different from... the claims of literally several billion people.
__________________
"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 24th April 2018, 09:08 AM   #214
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I have addressed many of the claims many times.
- Please give an example of a claim I have not addressed and the lame excuse I've used to avoid it.
Example: How many 'going 60 MPH' are there?

When you were complaining that you had too many opponents and too many questions, you requested that everyone agree on a single question. The question above was given by almost everyone over a spread of a couple pages. This question had come up previously regarding emergent properties. Despite everyone complying with your request, you ignored every post that had this question. To my knowledge, you have still not answered it.
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 24th April 2018, 09:19 AM   #215
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,358
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
On the previous page of the thread are a whole bunch of points made by JayUtah that you failed to address.
And in one of his threads I made a list of several serious flaws in his argument that he failed for months to address. He initially wanted it for the blog he was then writing -- another of the points of disrespect he's trying not to have to talk about this week -- but then balked when it became clear I wanted them debated at that forum in a particular way that sidestepped his evasive tactics. Nearly every day for six months, from June 2017 to December 2017, I posted a link to that list, asking him to address it in the specific manner I expected. After it became a unison cry for him to stop ignoring it, he tried a couple of times to weave it into the ongoing shell game, but then finally admitted he couldn't do as he was asked. He didn't get to play his game, so he ran away.

But see, Jabba has an excuse. JayUtah is a big ol' meanie who calls him names and isn't friendly, and writes posts that are too long or too hard to read, and ... well you name it. It's hard to think of a poison Jabba hasn't tried to throw down that well. He can't prove any of this, mind you. And he's given up trying. But in the Jabbaverse, "effective debate" seems to mean that if you can find something disagreeable to say about your critic, then any otherwise merit to his argument somehow goes away. It's then somehow okay to ignore refutations.

It gets even more comical when Jabba finally decides to engage me and asks me a question I've already answered. "Well, have you read my posts?" No, he hasn't. "Do you intend to?" No, he doesn't. This happened just a page or two ago in this thread, where Jabba quoted one of his regular critics and then asked a question that the quoted post actually answered. I think the most egregious example of this behavior was when I had to point out that I had answered Jabba's question in a post literally two entries above where he asked it. Jabba utterly refused to simply cast his eyes slightly upward to achieve satisfaction. He chose to drop the point rather than admit he wasn't really paying attention. It's all about what he thinks he can persuade his critics to do so that he doesn't have to face up to anything and be accountable for it.

He tried that yesterday. "Please direct me to the thing you already posted, which I can't be bothered to go find." Well, no, I'm not going to babysit him. And look what happened when I didn't -- it worked. He managed to find the post all by himself. Similar things happened at Talk Stats (another forum where Jabba presented his statistical proof for immortality). As soon as they told him to stop playing games or else they would lock his thread, he straightened up. Those examples are how we know it's a deliberate act with a calculated outcome. He can stop doing it when he's forced to, but he prefers to just play the shell game, because that's what he means by "effective" debate. It's worth noting that when it became obvious no one at Talk Stats wanted to play his games, he lost interest and wandered away. When Jabba doesn't get to play his games, he's not at all interested in doing anything else. That's the deplorable in the state of written debate he sees.

Jabba ignores his critics. He proudly admits that he does. The quote in his signature says to the effect that he'll only pay attention to the people he likes. When those are the indisputable facts, you see the nefarious motive in Jabba wanting now to have everything meticulously documented for him when we simply accuse him of what he admits to. His whole plan is to kick the can down the road one more day: "Can you please clarify?" "Can you please provide examples?" "I don't remember what you said; can you please repeat it?" "I may have answered this before, but I don't remember." In Jabba's mind that qualifies as not ignoring his critics.
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 24th April 2018, 09:24 AM   #216
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,828
Remember when Duke Nukem Forever still not having come out was a big joke in video game circles and people started the "Things which took less time than Duke Nukem Forever" list and then Duke Nukem Forever still didn't come up so they actually made a "Things which have happened since the Things Which Took Less Time than Duke Nukem Forever List Game Out."

We're at that level now. Jabba's been spoon feed so many list of all the arguments he hasn't addressed we could make a page long list of all the lists.
__________________
"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 24th April 2018, 09:28 AM   #217
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,454
Jabba has spent years, literally YEARS, running from any attempts to get him to answer questions clearly. He inexplicably seems to believe his meandering double talk somehow constitutes a "debate" of some kind. It does not.

I predict Jabba will learn nothing from this thread, and will continue to wallow in mediocrity and circular mewling.

Jabba trying to run a discussion about effective debate strategies is only slightly more delusional than this woman:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Last edited by halleyscomet; 24th April 2018 at 09:30 AM.
halleyscomet 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 24th April 2018, 09:40 AM   #218
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,391
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I have addressed many of the claims many times.
- Please give an example of a claim I have not addressed and the lame excuse I've used to avoid it.
How many going 60 mph are there?

You don't even often a lame excuse. You just ignore the question even though dozens are asking you the same question all at the same time.


OOPS - Ninja'd. Apologies.
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2018, 10:01 AM   #219
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,454
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- IMO, effective debate means that both sides are able to fully present their own sides to a mixed jury. The validity of the "facts" and reasoning they present is to be continually evaluated and voted upon.
Are you from that "we vote on everything, even medicine and trials" planet from season 1 of "The Orville?"

Oh, that's right. Jabba has me blocked because I was a meanie-head. Can someone he hasn't blocked pass along the question? Better not to mention my name, or he'll just block you too.

Last edited by halleyscomet; 24th April 2018 at 10:02 AM.
halleyscomet 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 24th April 2018, 10:02 AM   #220
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 26,629
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I have addressed many of the claims many times.
Please give an example of you addressing a claim many times.
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 24th April 2018, 10:19 AM   #221
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,454
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Please give an example of you addressing a claim many times.
First there needs to be a three year long debate about what "addressing" means, wherein Jabba insists, through heavy coded language that never gets to the point, that "addressing" is a synonym for "ignoring completely while lying about discussing the topic."

Last edited by halleyscomet; 24th April 2018 at 10:21 AM.
halleyscomet 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 24th April 2018, 10:39 AM   #222
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,845
Originally Posted by Filippo Lippi View Post
Hey Jabba, please remind us what happened when all of your preconditions for effective debate were agreed to?

Here it is, Jabba. Look it over, let us know how you think you fared when you were given everything that you demanded.
__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell
Filippo Lippi is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2018, 12:06 PM   #223
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,490
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
Jabba,

Hi! I for one would be happy to practice effective debate with you. I wouldn't want to get into a repeat of the Shroud or Immortality threads of course, so I would want to take the affirmative position. I have a claim that I think would work really well. If you'd be interested in giving it a shot so you can show us all how it's done let me know. Without that I don't quite see where else you would go with this thread.
SOdhner,
- Let's give it a try.
Great! I'm looking forward to seeing you model effective debate for us.

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

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

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

Jabba, I'm really looking forward to this and I want to genuinely thank you for agreeing to work with me on it.
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 24th April 2018, 12:07 PM   #224
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,358
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I've pointed out the irony on multiple occasions that stripped of its performance art Jabba's base claim, that there is a non-material aspect to his existence that will in some way or some form survive the point where his physical body stops functioning...
Originally Posted by Monza View Post
Example: How many 'going 60 MPH' are there?
And keep in mind that this thread is sort of an overarching discussion of Jabba's thoughts on effective debate in general and his inability -- again in general -- neither to adhere himself to his own standards nor to achieve any sort of effectiveness in debate as we understand the term.1 While we necessarily have to refer to elements of those debates to make our points, it is wise first to remember that context is needed for those reading only this thread, and second to avoid the urge to re-argue those points in this thread.

Equivocation is one of Jabba's common tactics. He uses words to mean one thing in one case, and another thing in a different time and place. I would argue that for a debate to be effective, we must all agree on what words mean. Jabba, on the other hand, tends to re-ambiguate the terminology as soon as his critics pinion him to a particular meaning that he must then defend. In the larger sense Jabba wants to recast the debate over some objectively testable claim to be a debate over some respectworthy (if subjective) belief that relates to the testable claim. That's just equivocation writ large. He wants to recast his critics' objection to the claim that some belief is objectively verified or verifiable as an attack on the belief itself, or some kind of hypocrisy of some of his critics may privately also hold the belief. Over at Talk Stats he tried to show that scientists really do believe in some of the things he also believes. But everyone is quick to point out that this is not the same as agreement that his allegedly scientific proofs for those beliefs are also valid.

About half the graduates I interview for scientist positions are graduates from the large Mormon university just south of me. They're largely well-qualified, well-educated scientists. I assume they're also reasonably devout Mormons and therefore believe in a number of religious concepts that aren't necessarily compatible with prevailing scientific holdings. This has never been a problem, mostly because people are quite able to separate religious belief from scientific belief and understand the strengths and limitations of each. It's only when one tries to combine them -- as Jabba does -- that problems arise. And those problems aren't solved by whining that someone is hostile to a religious or spiritual belief because he disputes claims that try to make it objective.

"How many 'going 60 mph' are there?" is a nonsensical question on its face, and Jabba clung to a number of opinions so rendered as a justification for why it needed no answer. But the question was intended as a reductio ad absurdum refutation for Jabba's equivocal recasting of the concepts of entity and property in existential philosophy. If Jabba's understanding of those concepts were correct, then the question "How many 'going 60 mph' are there?" would make sense and have an answer.

Effective debate requires all the parties present to understand and obey the basic principles of propositional logic. Jabba doesn't. Many times his critics have asked him to describe basic tenets of logic in his own terms. He cannot. Occasionally he will pick up on a logic word or phrase his critics use and use it later himself -- incorrectly. Debate will never be effective if one party is incapable of understanding how and why he has lost. And if a debate involves specific bodies of knowledge such as archaeology or philosophy, one must master those subjects to the degree required to support arguments that depend on specialized understanding. Jabba either does not understand philosophical taxonomy or else (more probably) he chooses to redefine the words commonly used there to equivocate past reasonable refutations.

Indeed at large Jabba's argument consist largely of trying to define his way to success, regardless of what words and concepts really mean. He uses social methods to compel agreement to various premises and definitions which are actually his argument. Jabba considers debate to be "effective" only if all his critics have effectively agreed before the debate that Jabba is right. In one thread, Jabba presented "evidence" that boiled down to conjectural alternate explanations for contravening facts. Naturally that was rejected, whereupon Jabba complained that he shouldn't have to debate people if they didn't accept his evidence.

__________
1 I gather from recent comments that Jabba defines "effectiveness" in debate as the conditions that allow both sides to present their case completely and thus to enable a fully-informed conclusion. I suspect many others here would have different criteria for effectiveness. Obviously endless repetition of the same points, in the guise of "completeness," isn't effective. But I measure effectiveness as progress toward one conclusion or the other, whether that takes a little time or a lot.

Specifically, we can often tell immediately that some argument fails because it commits some egregiously fatal error early on, or at the highest level. We don't need to draw out the process if failure occurs that way. Jabba wants to suggest that it is impossible to draw a defensible conclusion on some proposition unless the argument has been heard in its entirety. Since "in its entirety" means "in perpetuity" in the Jabba mode of debate, that's not effective or practicable.

"Religion is universally bad because even if the Christians were to have some redeeming quality, the Jews are even worse." That's an argument we can immediately dismiss because it's blatantly based on a false dilemma. I don't have to delve into the history of religion, the doctrines of Christianity and Judaism, and the merits of secular ethics to call the argument untenable on its face because of its logical structure. In my mind effective debate is also efficient debate, and therefore most effective when it can reach a tenable conclusion with a minimum of effort.

And toward that end, facial invalidity is a concept in debate. It's used, for example, in arguments that test the constitutionality of laws. A law is facially unconstitutional if there is no possible way it could be enforced without violating a constitutional protection. If that's the argument, then the circumstances that brought it to the court's attention are largely irrelevant. The facts of the case are moot and the judgment occurs as a matter of law. Similarly if an argument is illogical in structure (i.e., "a non-validating syllogistic form"), then the facts of the argument don't matter and can't save it. In contrast, some laws are constitutional or not depending on the circumstances of their enforcement. Those require attention to detail. Similarly, arguments of validating form can still err according to fact and be wrong.

In Jabba's two largest threads here, his arguments were shown to be facially invalid because they were demonstrably predicted on logical fallacies. He wants desperately to redeem them by lengthy, quibbling debates over their cellular makeup to distract from their absurdity on the face. That's why he won't ever condescend to a debate at the high level, where -- in his case -- it would be the most effective.
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 24th April 2018, 01:54 PM   #225
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,599
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
The claim that your argument commits the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy is a classic one; at various times you've claimed it doesn't apply to you because you're specially chosen by virtue of being yourself (which is in itself simply a re-statement of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy), insisted that you really believe it doesn't apply to you despite the fact that you don't have an actual counter to it, and asked whether we could just look at the rest of your argument and admit that apart from this one utterly fatal flaw it has some merits (which, of course, it doesn't because of all its other fatal flaws). These are all extremely lame excuses.

Dave
Dave,
- The main point here is that I do believe that each of us is (somehow) "set apart" and our current existence is, therefore, not subject to the sharpshooter fallacy.
- I gave my reasons for believing that, accepting that it is the weakest link in my argument, but still correct.

- Dr. Hoerl at Union College seemed to accept that the sharpshooter fallacy didn't apply. I did ask him about it, but I can't be sure he really understood my question...
- As far as I can remember, neither I nor Dr. Yucel at SUNY ever mentioned it in our discussion...
- And, IMO the most statistically knowledgeable of my opponents here (Caveman), agreed that the TSS fallacy didn't apply.
- I've tried to contact other Statistics Professors at other schools, BUT NONE OF THEM HAS RETURNED MY CORRESPONDENCE. I tried to explain the immortality issue to the first two -- so I can understand their reluctance to respond. But re the third contact, I just said that I wanted to talk to someone about Bayesian Statistics, and that a student would do. It's been about a week.

- Otherwise, so far, I think that my other numbers [P(H), P(~H) and P(E|~H)] are plenty reasonable enough to win the argument. If you think not, please tell me (again?) why. If, I can get some agreement re those numbers, I'll be much more comfortable focusing on the appropriateness of P(E|H).
- And, if then, you still believe that I'm making other fatal flaws, I won't ignore your arguments -- though, I will probably address only one at a time.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico 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 24th April 2018, 02:03 PM   #226
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 26,629
What part of this is effective debate?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2018, 02:37 PM   #227
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,358
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
The main point here is that I do believe that each of us is (somehow) "set apart" and our current existence is, therefore, not subject to the sharpshooter fallacy.
Now you're trying to replay your immortality debate again. There's a thread for that. This is where we discuss your inability to debate effectively.

Quote:
...accepting that it is the weakest link in my argument, but still correct.
And if the weakest link fails, your entire chain of reasoning fails regardless of how strong you think those other links may have been. This is the facial validity problem you simply refuse to confront. You can't grasp that committing any of several broad-strokes errors can't be cured by descending into detail, ignoring it, or pretending it's not fatal.

You're trying to equivocate. You admit that you err in committing the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, but you don't admit the consequences of that error. You just say, "I'll deal with that later" and move on as if nothing happened. This is tantamount to the ongoing ignoring of your critics that you are being charged with. And it's disrespectful, as we've discussed. You have six other points of disrespect to discuss. Please do so, as I asked, or else admit that you refuse to satisfy your critics' requests and thereby prove me right.

Quote:
- Dr. Hoerl at Union College seemed to accept that the sharpshooter fallacy didn't apply. I did ask him about it, but I can't be sure he really understood my question...
- As far as I can remember, neither I nor Dr. Yucel at SUNY ever mentioned it in our discussion...
You don't invoke either of these in your statement of the case. In your statement of the case you provide a solipsistic argument of your own invention to pretend the fallacy doesn't apply. You don't address it. You simply insist it must not be a problem because you feel it shouldn't be. This is tantamount to ignoring your critics.

Quote:
And, IMO the most statistically knowledgeable of my opponents here (Caveman), agreed that the TSS fallacy didn't apply.
He also agreed that your entire argument was impossibly wrong. See how this is evidence of the selective attention I charged you with? You pay attention to people when you think they support you, but you ignore them when they criticize you. Your attention to other people in a debate is determined entirely by whether they are favorable to your case. How does that constitute an effective approach to debate?

As to whether he was a knowledgeable opponent, you admitted you didn't understand what he was talking about. You are therefore not qualified to judge whether he was knowledgeable. Does effective debate allow for accepting expert testimony just because it sounds good to a layman?

Quote:
I've tried to contact other Statistics Professors...
Your inability to attract the attention of people knowledgeable in the sciences that pertain to your claims is not at all related to whether you ignore the parts of those sciences you don't understand. We're talking about whether you debate effectively, not your conspiracy theories for why no one will talk to you anymore.

Quote:
Otherwise, so far, I think that my other numbers [P(H), P(~H) and P(E|~H)] are plenty reasonable enough to win the argument.
Off-topic. There is a different thread for discussing your failed statistical proof for immortality. Do not simply move that discussion here. But as long as it's here -- you've been told by every single statistician you've consulted that your proof doesn't work. You ignored them. They asked you to quit playing games and just debate honestly and fairly. You did for a while, under threat of banishment, but then lost interest and wandered away. Is there really any point anymore in pretending you approach debate as anything other than an echo chamber?

Quote:
And, if then, you still believe that I'm making other fatal flaws, I won't ignore your arguments -- though, I will probably address only one at a time.
Asked and answered. You consent to participate only if you can foist your obstructionist strategy, which has historically ensured that most of the refutation will never be discussed. This is simply more evidence that you not only ignore what others say, but that you have developed a rhetorical framework obviously intended to justify and perpetuate that. I have shown that as soon as you are denied your wallowing, your interest disappears. Trying to force your critics to obey your one-sided rules is another element of your disrespect that I mentioned.

Last edited by JayUtah; 24th April 2018 at 02:46 PM.
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 24th April 2018, 03:13 PM   #228
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,391
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...
- Dr. Hoerl at Union College seemed to accept that the sharpshooter fallacy didn't apply. I did ask him about it, but I can't be sure he really understood my question...
- As far as I can remember, neither I nor Dr. Yucel at SUNY ever mentioned it in our discussion...
- And, IMO the most statistically knowledgeable of my opponents here (Caveman), agreed that the TSS fallacy didn't apply.
- I've tried to contact other Statistics Professors at other schools, BUT NONE OF THEM HAS RETURNED MY CORRESPONDENCE. I tried to explain the immortality issue to the first two -- so I can understand their reluctance to respond. But re the third contact, I just said that I wanted to talk to someone about Bayesian Statistics, and that a student would do. It's been about a week......
Hey, you left out how you went to the stats forum and managed to get them all to stop talking to you in record time, because, as they so eloquently put, you have no interest in learning.
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2018, 03:18 PM   #229
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 26,629
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- And, IMO the most statistically knowledgeable of my opponents here (Caveman), agreed that the TSS fallacy didn't apply.
First, we know you're not competent enough in statistics to judge who is and is not "statistically knowledgable".

Second, statistics isn't even the domain of knowledge which is required to recognize the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

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 24th April 2018, 03:56 PM   #230
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,358
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What part of effective debate is this?
The part where we go down the rabbit hole. This is Jabba's obstructionist, sub-sub-sub-issues-first method of yanking debate away from the salient point and shoving it down into irrelevant detail where it orbits indefinitely. This is why I tell him specifically what level of detail and scope I will accept in his answer. Watch him squirm when I press him for it. "Waaahh! It's like you're asking me to lift this heavy weight."

More specifically this is what happens when we fall for Jabba's incessant demands for production. He asked us to tell him the ways in which he disrespects his critics, which was itself a request-for-production from a previous charge made, I believe, by Loss Leader. Jabba gets a list, which he ignores until it becomes uncomfortable for him further to do so. Then he insists we have to take the list one item and time, one sentence at a time. Now, a page down the road, we've advanced all the way to Sentence #2 of the first point of disrespect. "Can you give me examples of these?" Several examples are given. But we can't progress any farther than Sentence 2, Issue 1 -- the first example. And before you know it we're talking about whether some professor may or may not have mentioned the Texas sharpshooter fallacy: Sentence 2, Issue 1, Sub-issue 3 or 4. Which, of course, is hell-and-gone from whether Jabba follows his own rules for effective debate, which was what Loss Leader was trying to ask.

This is what happens when we let Jabba play his standard game. Unless Jabba gets cornered on Sentence 2, we are almost guaranteed never to get to Sentence 3 of the first of seven specific ways (although certainly not all) Jabba acts disrespectfully toward the people he debates. And that's exactly his plan. He makes debate "effective" by ensuring that it effectively never occurs.

Last edited by JayUtah; 24th April 2018 at 03:58 PM.
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 24th April 2018, 10:15 PM   #231
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,090
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
The part where we go down the rabbit hole. This is Jabba's obstructionist, sub-sub-sub-issues-first method of yanking debate away from the salient point and shoving it down into irrelevant detail where it orbits indefinitely.

It’s not even that: it’s Jabba trying to change the subject when cornered.

ETA: Actually, it’s Jabba successfully changing the subject, since he has now got people discussing deficiencies of his ‘proof’ of immortality rather than whether his debating tactics constitute “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

Last edited by Mojo; 24th April 2018 at 10:25 PM.
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 25th April 2018, 12:44 AM   #232
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,578
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Please give an example of a claim I have not addressed and the lame excuse I've used to avoid it.
Well, here's a classic example, reproduced below.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- The main point here is that I do believe that each of us is (somehow) "set apart" and our current existence is, therefore, not subject to the sharpshooter fallacy.
- I gave my reasons for believing that, accepting that it is the weakest link in my argument, but still correct.

- Dr. Hoerl at Union College seemed to accept that the sharpshooter fallacy didn't apply. I did ask him about it, but I can't be sure he really understood my question...
- As far as I can remember, neither I nor Dr. Yucel at SUNY ever mentioned it in our discussion...
- And, IMO the most statistically knowledgeable of my opponents here (Caveman), agreed that the TSS fallacy didn't apply.
- I've tried to contact other Statistics Professors at other schools, BUT NONE OF THEM HAS RETURNED MY CORRESPONDENCE. I tried to explain the immortality issue to the first two -- so I can understand their reluctance to respond. But re the third contact, I just said that I wanted to talk to someone about Bayesian Statistics, and that a student would do. It's been about a week.

- Otherwise, so far, I think that my other numbers [P(H), P(~H) and P(E|~H)] are plenty reasonable enough to win the argument. If you think not, please tell me (again?) why. If, I can get some agreement re those numbers, I'll be much more comfortable focusing on the appropriateness of P(E|H).
- And, if then, you still believe that I'm making other fatal flaws, I won't ignore your arguments -- though, I will probably address only one at a time.
A classic set of excuses - simple denial, referral back to an earlier simple denial, an appeal to two authorities whom you openly admit didn't support your claim, an appeal to an authority whose only claim to authority is your own opinion, an appeal to three more authorities who wouldn't even give you the time of day, and yet another attempt to pretend that you can somehow rescue your argument by pretending the issue doesn't exist and that the rest of it somehow hangs together.

I mean, really, this is beyond parody. I listed all the things you do to try and gloss over your argument's fatal flaws, and you reply by doing every damned one of them yet again!

There is literally no point in you trying to address your style of debate. Your problem is content.

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

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 25th April 2018 at 12:45 AM.
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2018, 12:55 AM   #233
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 10,255
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- The main point here is that I do believe that each of us is (somehow) "set apart" and our current existence is, therefore, not subject to the sharpshooter fallacy.
- I gave my reasons for believing that, accepting that it is the weakest link in my argument, but still correct.
Your stated reasoning is utterly absurd, as was explained to you every time you trotted it out. You never made any attempt to defend or justify it, or responded in any way to the valid criticisms of it. You just repeat it, in the apparent belief that constantly repeating 2+2=5 will eventually make it true.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 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 25th April 2018, 03:43 AM   #234
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,662
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
And, IMO the most statistically knowledgeable of my opponents here (Caveman), agreed that the TSS fallacy didn't apply.
I'm not the most statistically knowledgeable of your opponents here, jt512 is definitely more statistically knowledgeable than me and I suspect so is JayUtah and some others. I probably am the most measure-theoric knowledgeable one, but I barely know statistics other than a single university course which I forgot most of again anyway since I mostly found it boring. For example I wouldn't for the life of me be able to remember when a t-test had to be used as opposed to some other test (can't even remember their names, I think another one was called Fisher test or something).

Many of your opponents do seem to be suffering from the "Math for Engineers" problem though, where reasoning forms which may hold in specialized cases are used in the general case where they may not hold. That Conjunction Fallacy argument is probably an instance of this. Probably so is that Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy argument.

And no, you're not committing the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. The TSS Fallacy is something like having a sample from a population, considering the population mean equal to the sample mean, and then using that same sample to test the hypothesis of the population mean being that number. In more general terms, the same information gets used multiple times to reduce the entropy in hypothesis-space. If you were committing the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy then your hypothesis wouldn't be "people are immortal" but "I was specifically chosen to exist immortally". And even then it could simply be solved by weighing the priors according to model complexity.

Now before you misinterpret the above: "Math for Engineers" still beats your not-even-wrong non-math by a huge margin.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 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 25th April 2018, 03:59 AM   #235
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,662
You want effective debate, Jabba? Here you go:

At the start a set of hypotheses H is determined by the participants. A set of knowledge K, consisting of propositions considered to be true, is constructed as follows: each participant i provides their personal set K_i and K is then the intersection of all K_i. A probability measure P over H is then constructed as the maximum entropy distribution given K.

At each iteration of the debate one of the participants provides a proof for a chosen proposition. Upon validation of the proof this proposition is added to K and P is updated to be the maximum entropy distribution given the new K.

At the end of the debate the participant(s) with higher P for their preferred hypothesis declare victory over those with lower P.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 25th April 2018 at 05:47 AM.
caveman1917 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 25th April 2018, 04:51 AM   #236
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,454
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What part of this is effective debate?


The REAL title of the thread is “Jabba’s ‘Pay more attention to meeeeeee!’ Thread.”
halleyscomet 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 25th April 2018, 06:30 AM   #237
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,599
- So now, what do I do with my two or three hours today?! I had already spent probably 20 minutes stewing about my dilemma -- before reading Caveman's new entries...
- Currently, I have about 15 sub-issues I should be addressing -- and once I address the first, I'll probably get several more that I need to address.

- My proposed model of effective debate would have only one spokesperson per side (but each spokesperson could theoretically recruit all the help needed). They would present opening arguments, then slowly develop a 'tree' of sub-issues, sub-sub-issues, etc. -- one of the critical problems with our controversial issues is that they tend to be very complicated.
- One section of the site would provide my suggestions as to how to judge the arguments, as well as suggestions from one of you guys as to how to judge the arguments -- if I can get you guys interested.

- Anyway, now I need to decide how to best deal with all the different -- current -- claims that I need to address. I'll be back.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor

Last edited by Jabba; 25th April 2018 at 06:31 AM.
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2018, 06:51 AM   #238
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 26,629
So debate with caveman then, and ignore everyone else.
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 25th April 2018, 06:56 AM   #239
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,358
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So now, what do I do with my two or three hours today?!
Tell us what you had for dinner last night. That's the level of relevance you've managed to achieve.

Quote:
Currently, I have about 15 sub-issues I should be addressing -- and once I address the first, I'll probably get several more that I need to address.
No, don't blame your critics. You asked for the reasons we think you're disrespectful. You got a list of them within hours. You stalled for two days pretending the information you asked for hadn't been supplied. Then you tried your standard shell game -- "Gee, guys, could you direct me to where you answered my question?" Then you managed to apply your standard evasions, and as a result -- two more days hence -- we're still stuck on the second sentence of the first issue having made no progress beyond you saying, "Nujh-uh!!!" and continuing to whine about how badly you think people treat you.

The reason we can't make headway is because you refuse to engage. Stop pretending it's anything else. Especially stop pretending it's your critics' fault.

Quote:
My proposed model of effective debate would have only one spokesperson per side...
We tried that. You didn't change your bad behavior as a result. Therefore that's not the problem.

You propose to limit your critics so that you don't have to face as much criticism as you would if everyone who found a problem with your argument were allowed to speak. Most of your proposed ground rules are aimed at giving you the advantage. But in any case, we proved that you aren't any more capable of having an effective debate when all your conditions are granted. The link to that train-wreck of a thread is posted above. So stop pretending your problem is with the ground rules.

Quote:
(but each spokesperson could theoretically recruit all the help needed). They would present opening arguments, then slowly develop a 'tree' of sub-issues, sub-sub-issues, etc. -- one of the critical problems with our controversial issues is that they tend to be very complicated.
No. Your arguments on "our controversial issues" are broken from the start. Your errors are actually quite simple. Your "proofs" are facially illogical, and truly effective debate dismisses them immediately on that basis no matter how much you want to have your five-year quibble-fest over sub-sub-sub-issues. It is possible for your proofs to fail right out of the gate. You don't get to demand a different rebuttal.

Quote:
One section of the site would provide my suggestions as to how to judge the arguments, as well as suggestions from one of you guys as to how to judge the arguments -- if I can get you guys interested.
Oh, knock it off, Jabba. You're not interested in judging any arguments except insofar as that judgment shows you to be a genius. You can't demonstrate even the slightest competence in logic, evidence, or effective debate, so no one is interested in your ignorant opinion over how to do it. Once again you simply beg the question that you really are the genius you think you are. As I wrote in the newest list of charges you're now terrified of, you demand that we all accept your delusions of grandeur as a condition of debating you.

You are not the teacher.

Moreover, you don't get to be the player and the referee. That's one of the annoying things you do when you're cornered. You break out of your participant's role and try to act like a moderator or professor "analyzing" the debate instead of losing it.

Quote:
Anyway, now I need to decide how to best deal with all the different -- current -- claims that I need to address. I'll be back.
And back, and back, and back -- never moving the discussion forward, just kicking the can down the road another day with a fairly worn-out set of cheap rhetorical shenanigans. All frankly because you just can't admit you lost. There's nothing about this exercise that rises above ego-stroking.
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 25th April 2018, 06:57 AM   #240
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,599
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
So debate with caveman then, and ignore everyone else.
- Anyone disagree?
__________________
"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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:16 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.