A discussion on weighing up two sides of an argument

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman

Actually, often the opposite is true, theory precedes evidence - evidence is then sought that supports or challenges the theory until we reach a point where the theory is accepted, refined or discarded. For example, there is a theory (Einstein's general theory of relativity) that allows for wormholes to form - no-one has yet found a wormhole. Nevertheless the theory stands until it can be proved, refined or discounted and some scientists are actively trying to find wormholes to prove the theory.

Ah, just a minute.
Physics is more conjecture than theory. This is why I did not respond to the second point offered by erobitha, that of quantum physics - a whole different ball game.
With physics we have to speculate to explain the natural world, I mean we all know about atoms and the nucleus, it's all theory (conjecture), because no-one (as far as I know?) has ever seen an atom, or a nucleus, yet equally no-one would ever argue they don't exist.

This is not the same as a tangible force like Gravity that can be tested.
Also, Relativity encapsulates a number of topics, but one specifically Gravity can be tested, from tests we can obtain data (facts). This data (facts) can be interpreted a number of ways.
Each way is a separate theory, but only one theory can be correct.
This isn't my field so I don't choose to go too far into the fog on this topic.
That said, I thought, In Search of Schrodinger's Cat, by John Gribbin, was an amazing (as in 'mind-bending') book.

[Kattrup]

Hi Jeff


In your OP you tend to frame the discussion as one of probability. Personally, I do not find probablity very interesting in most historical arguments, because either something happened or it did not. You might consider that simplistic, but really, that's what it boils down to. The problem is that some posters here have a hard time accepting that we sometimes have too little information to accurately determine what happened or what did not happen.

Probability, in the form of general knowledge about Victorian society, can in some cases help us determine whether some arguments are valid, e.g. the high literacy rate can at least falsify the theory that JtR could not have written letters or the GSG (because a high lteracy rate would mean the killer had a high probablity of being literate).

[JeffHamm]

I am fine if it is optional, but to state you expect everybody to abide by this context on every thread going forward, is to me an infringement of my free speech. If the board owners endorse this policy then it will drive people away, which I'm guessing would suit some. I for one will not sign up to those terms.

Those who wish to engage in such activities as an optional pursuit should be free to do so, as should those who do not.

There is always room for theories or we wouldn't have understood gravity, quantum physics or most major scientific breakthrough there has been in the past 100 years.

You said truth is binary and that's a good analogy. If you reduce all you see to zeroes and ones then all you see is a series of zeroes and ones.

I don't think I said people had to be logical and rational, only that discussion might not stall as often if we were. But everyone has the right to choose how they present their case, be it through reason, sophistry, or makeing things up. But, I would suggest that if we wish to learn than some approaches are more suited than others, while if we just want to be free to say what ever we want, be it true or false, rational or not, then a no holds barred approach is fine.

Anyway, it was an idea for a thread topic on the underlying aspects of how arguments work logically.
Examening one's tools doesn't tell you how to use them, but it might improve one's skills. I thought there might be interest. Clearly I was wrong.


A statement is either true or it is not true. A theory is only true if all of its statements are true.
otherwise it requires revision. While some view such things as mostly true, or partly true, they formally boil down into a mix of true or false building blocks.

It's complexity from simplicity.

- Jeff

[etenguy]

We understand gravity due to experimentation, the results of which produce factual data, this data is the basis for theories.
That is a good example of how the process is supposed to work - facts come before theories.

Hi Wickerman

Actually, often the opposite is true, theory precedes evidence - evidence is then sought that supports or challenges the theory until we reach a point where the theory is accepted, refined or discarded. For example, there is a theory (Einstein's general theory of relativity) that allows for wormholes to form - no-one has yet found a wormhole. Nevertheless the theory stands until it can be proved, refined or discounted and some scientists are actively trying to find wormholes to prove the theory.

[Wickerman]

.... If the board owners endorse this policy then it will drive people away, which I'm guessing would suit some. I for one will not sign up to those terms.

No worries, it is never going to happen. In all the years I've been a member of Casebook, JTRForums, & others, I have always been fascinated by how people reach their conclusions.

Some just argue for the sake of argument, others join in on one side because they don't like the other person posting the argument, nothing to do with a factual debate, it's just 'circling the wagons'.
Others have a completely wrong understanding of the facts but they will not back down, they draw a line in the sand and they defend their position to the death, they refuse to be seen to have been wrong.

How many times have you read where a poster writes: "oh, I didn't know that, if that is the case it changes everything"?
Practically never right?

If the witnesses present all say the mortuary piece & the G.S. piece, when put together, made an apron, then the apron was in two pieces - that's the end of it.

[Abby Normal]

What are the odds?

lol. good one

[Wickerman]

We understand gravity due to experimentation, the results of which produce factual data, this data is the basis for theories.
That is a good example of how the process is supposed to work - facts come before theories.

[erobitha]

We're in the area of philosophy and logic actually. Discussing the formalities of logical reasoning no more hampers free speech than learning how to use a hammer hinders building things out of wood.

It's not something that comes up in typical conversations, but logical reasoning is a structured activity and some people like to know and explore how the tools they use work. It's not if interest to some, but it's not about controlling free speech in any way. Rather, the opposite, because people are free to say what they want, how should the rational observer evaluate what they are told? How do we logically change our beliefs based upon what we have been told, etc.

- Jeff

I am fine if it is optional, but to state you expect everybody to abide by this context on every thread going forward, is to me an infringement of my free speech. If the board owners endorse this policy then it will drive people away, which I'm guessing would suit some. I for one will not sign up to those terms.

Those who wish to engage in such activities as an optional pursuit should be free to do so, as should those who do not.

There is always room for theories or we wouldn't have understood gravity, quantum physics or most major scientific breakthrough there has been in the past 100 years.

You said truth is binary and that's a good analogy. If you reduce all you see to zeroes and ones then all you see is a series of zeroes and ones.

[erobitha]

Sorry, perhaps i should have provided some more info.

What I'm talking about is an area of philosophy of science called confirmation theory. It's the formal study of how reasonable conclusions are made based upon evidence and so forth.

What I was outlining is the core ideas, and for those familiar with statistical analysis, corresponds most closely to Bayesian analysis.

Anyway, for those who are not interested in the logic and reasoning the underlies how evidence is used to confirm or reject theories that's fine. It can be dry unless you're into such things. I know a bit about this area, but it's certainly not my area of speciality.

If nothing else, some might be interested to know that there are people who make a career out of arguing about how arguments work. It's not about just holding your own and refusing to back down, for example.

There may be no body keen on looking under the hood at how evidence is used to evaluate an idea, or how arguments work with respect to rational thought. That's cool, it will die on the vine. If anyone is interested, I'm happy to be involved too.

- Jeff

Is this how a court of law operates? Arguments should be operated on a legal basis, as oppossed to a statisitical one. Legal arguments are not about "not backing down", they are based on reasoned and rational debate with nuance and evidence. Ultimately then a jury decides if the cases have been made well enough, using whatever is presneted at that time. I'm still living in this world of arguments.

I uunderstand some radical free thinkers on here believe we are beyond the usual realms of reality, as we will never likely gain enough evidence whereby we gain general consensus. I would argue that is not true. The majority consensus on the C5 victims and other issues surrounding the case have had opinion, evidence and consensus. I'd be open to a jury-style approach as oppossed to a statistical one personally.

"Casebook Jury". People join the team for the defence, people join the team for prosection and then have a general vote for which side made the best case.

[Wickerman]

Once you start defining the parameters of how an argument should be argued we are in the realms of parody, or worse, control of free speech. Argue as you see fit. If the other's side case is strong enough then it will be argued as such. Truth as an odds calculator, whatever next?

"Free speech" only applies to the government, not to privately owned forums. There is no free speech on private premises; pubs, stores, forums, etc.
Free Speech = the government cannot control what you say.

Many academic forums follow certain rules, and yes I know this is not an academic forum, but there are some basic's that posters should follow to add credence to their arguments.
Like for instance, one basic rule or guideline, in my opinion, should be to acknowledge that it is the evidence which speaks to a theory. Most students of murder cases must have heard the expression "let the evidence speak".
That point is basically saying, base your theory on known evidence, don't just throw out wild speculation and expect it to be taken seriously.
The same position is observed in a debate, don't just object because you don't like the proposal. Provide a legitimate objection, yes it might mean spending hours researching, but that is the point, when you research you learn, we all learn.

[DJA]

What are the odds?

Bayes' theorem - Wikipedia

[DJA]

Hallelujah!, if only such a rule could be observed.
That, to my mind, doesn't mean someone needs to come up with statistics, but just post a parallel example from some incident that supports their objection.

Arguments, or counter-arguments, without supporting examples (evidence, data, information, etc.) are more often based on some myopic desire to dismiss the point being made.

You've spent way too much time conversing with Trev.

[DJA]

I’m related to Thomas Bayes many generations crack, does that count.

Abby will be along to give his assessment

[Wickerman]

Hi all,

....I think it is important, and would be helpful to many discussions, therefore, to keep in mind that it is not a valid argument against a point to simply say “that information might be wrong”. What one has to do is draw upon information to show that the odds of it being wrong are truly in favour of that over that of the other Side.....

Hallelujah!, if only such a rule could be observed.
That, to my mind, doesn't mean someone needs to come up with statistics, but just post a parallel example from some incident that supports their objection.

Arguments, or counter-arguments, without supporting examples (evidence, data, information, etc.) are more often based on some myopic desire to dismiss the point being made.

[Joshua Rogan]

I’m related to Thomas Bayes many generations crack, does that count.

What are the odds?