A discussion on weighing up two sides of an argument

[caz]

Poor bloody swans thought they were going to the you beauty surf beach at Torquay and instead finished up in Dawlish ...... Dawlish

I take it you haven't been to Torquay recently then?

[caz]

Hmmm, I suppose there is one other aspect of debate and discussion that I should mention.

Rational approaches to debate and argumentation, which is what I've been focusing on above, is not the only approach available. The underlying goal, however, of reason is to get to the "truth." This is why pure reason focuses on those "All X are Y" ideals, because from those situations one can absolutely derive a true statement. Again, with the swans, if it were true that All swans are white, and it were true that I saw a swan yesterday, I never have to tell you that the swan I saw was white. You do not need my statement to that effect to prove the swan I saw was white. It had to be, purely through logical reasoning.

Those "some swans are white" type constructions don't allow for absolute truth to be derived at purely through logical reasoning, and because rare events do happen sometimes, pure reason throws a hissy fit and says we can't get to pure truth. The approach about how to deal with those is uncomfortable to the extremist of pure reason because of that - the objective can never be reached, similar to Achilles and the tortoise. However, just as calculus solved that paradox, philosophers have worked on rational rules for probabilistic premises in a similar way (while one cannot reach pure truth, one can try and estimate which limit of true/false is being approached by the asymptote).

In contrast, debates and discussion can introduce techniques from the school of sophistry. The goal of sophistry in a debate is not to discover truth, but rather only to persuade others to one's way of thinking. Eloquence, for example, is a technique emphasized by sophistry. See, the truth value of a statement doesn't change just because it is phrased awkwardly. It might not be clear, or easy to understand, but that doesn't necessarily make it any less true (or false, if you prefer). Granted, poorly phrased statements often introduce unintended meanings, which in turn would impact the truth value, but it does not have to. Sophistry emphasizes presentation techniques to win over listeners without adding any truth value to the statements. As such, in a debate where the rational argument is true, but presented awkwardly might fare more poorly by an elegant, but false, counter argument.

While eloquence is beneficial to the presentation, as it makes it easier to evaluate the truth values, it can also be used as a technique to persuade listeners to false conclusions.

Other sophistry techniques involve the use of pejorative language, particularly directed at the other speaker rather than their arguments per se. The idea is that if one can make the listeners view the other speaker more poorly, then the reasoning behind their arguments will be ignored. (Pointing out spelling or grammatical mistakes, for example, is a great distraction from the truth content of a statement) Again, the goal of sophistry is not to persuade by the strength of one's arguments, but rather to persuade through techniques of speech that do not contain or contribute to the truth value of what is said.

I am not a proponent of this form of counter-argument, although I recognize that clarity of presentation is beneficial I only recognize that provided it is the truth aspect of the statement that is clarified. When eloquence is used to mask a false statement as true, then it because a bad thing, in my view.

However, those of the sophistry school of debate do not agree with that last comment, because sophistry has a different set of "winning conditions", if you will. The objective is not to be true, but to convince, regardless of the truth.

So, while it is my opinion that sophistry should be avoided, I'm not espousing that the boards prohibit someone whose approach is of the sophistry school of debate. Indeed, I know for a fact I have entered into sophistry styles of debating on occasion, and while it can be emotionally satisfying, I also recognize it does not advance our progress in understanding what happened in 1888. Only fools would disagree with me there! (That, for example, is sophistry).

- Jeff

P.S. And to the great relief of what I suspect is not an entirely small number, I think I'm done.

P.P.S. I've been wrong before about that though.

Hi Jeff,

What I have always found interesting, and often very illuminating, is how an individual poster with a pet theory to defend will choose to go about it. It would be wonderful if everyone made an effort to be totally objective, by constantly testing their own beliefs against all the available evidence, as well as entertaining and exploring the opposite position. Too often, someone will come to the message boards with an entrenched belief and a heavy personal investment in it, and will then not be able to handle any objections, no matter how well argued or supported. If they take criticism personally, it will likely be rejected out of hand, instead of being taken into consideration. If only they would police themselves, and recognise when they are selecting or rejecting a piece of information, purely on the basis of what will keep their theory afloat and what would sink it, they'd attract far less criticism. Confirmation bias is an inevitable obstacle to civilised discussion, free of personal swipes. We can all see this in action in others, but not everyone will acknowledge it in themselves.

I do think the happiest theorist is the one who can leave their personal feelings out of it, and concentrate on the quality of their own arguments, first and foremost. Acknowledging where an argument is potentially weak is a sign of strength, and an important first step to being taken more seriously.

Love,

Caz
X

[DJA]

Charly - Wikipedia

[DJA]

What movie?

Which movie

[DJA]

Poor bloody swans thought they were going to the you beauty surf beach at Torquay and instead finished up in Dawlish ...... Dawlish

[caz]

Meh.
White swans are found in cold miserable countries .
Black swans are found in Oz!

We have black swans in Dawlish, Devon, not far from where I now live. They were apparently introduced to Dawlish from Australia in the 1940s, and I saw them in 1965, when on school journey from London.

Black swans are not found in cold miserable countries.
England therefore ceased to be a cold miserable country in the 1940s.

[caz]

What movie?

[DJA]

So, you saw the movie

[caz]

Where did most people cease reading that,if they started in the first place?

I'm just catching up with some topics after the Easter break, and always find Jeff Hamm's posts worth reading. In fact, every poster gives away a little bit about themselves as individuals, and that can make for interesting reading whoever they are. I like to think I could recognise most regular posters from their posts, without checking the username.

that that is is that that is not is not is it

That that is, is; that that is not, is not - is it?

Do I win £5?

Love,

Caz
X

[DJA]

I have been politely asked to start a dedicated thread by several long term members over the years.
Certainly not going to do so for a rude poster who accuses me of self promotion by quoting my post out of context.
Have been confined to bed for over two years fighting three forms of skin cancer and heart disease.I am in my 70s.
Truth is I've been seeking a suitable screen writer for over 16 years.Pretty much run out of time.

After considering your tactics,I will no longer even entertain expanding any further on the information previously afforded this website.

[Fiver]

Define fact,if you would.

I have over 20 points that support an extremely strong case based on circumstantial evidence, and have absolutely no doubt that Henry Gawen Sutton was Jack the Ripper.

Under criminal law that would suffice for a trial,except he's already dead.

Also have a strong case that there was a cover up at high levels,including police and at least one politician.

There's an old saying - "put your money where your mouth is". Instead of presenting your case, you repeatedly hint at it on unrelated threads. If you really think you have a solution, then present it clearly with evidence in a dedicated thread. But you seem wedded to your current strategy of repeated self-promotion, so I doubt you will ever clearly and completely present your case.

[DJA]

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia

[DJA]

List of cognitive biases - Wikipedia

[JeffHamm]

Nope,but if I was you,I'd get tested.

You appear to have difficulty with people having interests different from your own. I suggest you follow your own advice. Difficulty with change, or differences like that, is a sign you know.

As for myself, I'm an academic. We tend to get interested in fine details and such, it's part of the joy of understanding things to explore them. Not everyone's cup of tea, but then, the world would be a very boring, and less productive place, if we were all the same.

- Jeff

[DJA]

Nope,but if I was you,I'd get tested.