|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2007 : 09:10:33 [Permalink]
|
Against my better judgment I will continue. But here is the thing. I will not tolerate insulting language. As convinced as you are Dude that bias was a motivator in how I treated the subject, it's off the table unless you can provide support that I was motivated by bias. I have not missed the irony of taking that position on my part, given that you are stating an opinion on what my motivation might be. Thing is, I feel that I have addressed that conjecture sufficiently enough to remove it from this debate. I should also point out that I have agreed with you that bgal's conclusion was based on faulty induction. And when you brought that up after her first post (though not in those words) I did not jump in and defend her opinion. At that point, you were handling that and I saw no reason to interfere with that line of questioning.
In fact, I didn't really jump in until way later, after your position had hardened to a degree that I thought was unreasonable. Check the thread on that, please. My objection was based on what kind of evidence is required to support an opinion vs. a statement of fact. And of course, whether bgal's original conclusion was a statement of fact or an opinion. I also jumped in because of certain very harsh statements you made with regard to those who did not agree with you on that. The word “assholes” was the term you used to describe us.
What's more, I explained that people like Bill Scott never offer qualifiers with their assertions. The people you mentioned never admit that their evidence is anecdotal, over generalized or subject to change. So you continue to compare apples to oranges and claim that we treat those people differently, and that our criteria changes based on our bias, which just isn't so. And again, I pointed that out in the other thread.
Maybe we can nail something down here about how opinions are either the same as statements of fact, or something else, which could be of some value. But again, I am not going to play games with you on that.
I must go to work now.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 05/25/2007 : 15:03:04 [Permalink]
|
Kil said:
| I will not tolerate insulting language. |
You better not read these forums then 
| As convinced as you are Dude that bias was a motivator in how I treated the subject, it's off the table unless you can provide support that I was motivated by bias. |
I don't know that bias motivated you, anymore than you know that I am convinced it did. This isn't really relevant to the point I am trying to make here anyway. But your apparent bias manifested itself when you selected the only person in the thread not on your side of the argument to give an official warning. I was not the first person in that thread to throw an insult, and far from the only one doing it. (as if after 4 pages of "F_U", "asshole", "dumbass", and other expletives being thrown about by several people, Dude alone warrants warning because he can cuss better than the rest of the pack attacking him) But this also is not relevant.
On to the point:
| My objection was based on what kind of evidence is required to support an opinion vs. a statement of fact. And of course, whether bgal's original conclusion was a statement of fact or an opinion. |
You have already agreed that she stated a conclusion.
The POINT here is simple. Opinion which contain assertions of fact should not be treated differently than other assertions of fact. It is a logical fallacy, a false conflation in an attempt to shield one's assertion from criticism by comparing it to a purely subjective statement.
If you state an opinion (using the most general sense of the word here, at your insistence), and that opinion contains an assertion of fact, your assertion is subject to all the usual forms of criticism we normally apply to all claims.
Within the context of critical thinking, on a forum dedicated to skepticism, this should be taken for granted! It is ridiculous that I have to argue in favor of what should be the default position here.
| My objection was based on what kind of evidence is required to support an opinion vs. a statement of fact. And of course, whether bgal's original conclusion was a statement of fact or an opinion. |
I have conceded the definition of "opinion" that you want to use. That definition indicates that an opinion can contain assertions of fact and purely subjective statements.
My contention is, and was in the other thread, that assertions of fact cannot be shielded from criticism by falsely associating them with subjective statements. So even if your assertion is "just your opinion" it doesn't get a free pass on things like evidence!
As you have already conceded that beskeptigal's statement was based on a faulty induction, you must also concede that she was making a statement of fact.
| I also jumped in because of certain very harsh statements you made with regard to those who did not agree with you on that. The word “assholes” was the term you used to describe us. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 05/25/2007 15:05:57 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 05/26/2007 : 10:48:20 [Permalink]
|
Dude:
I don't know that bias motivated you, anymore than you know that I am convinced it did. |
Well, since you have suggested it outright and by implication and you brought it up again only a couple of posts ago, I have every reason to believe that you do think you know my motivation. Just saying…
Dude:
This isn't really relevant to the point I am trying to make here anyway. But your apparent bias manifested itself when you selected the only person in the thread not on your side of the argument to give an official warning. I was not the first person in that thread to throw an insult, and far from the only one doing it. (as if after 4 pages of "F_U", "asshole", "dumbass", and other expletives being thrown about by several people, Dude alone warrants warning because he can cuss better than the rest of the pack attacking him) But this also is not relevant. |
I asked you to tone it down because you were over the top with your insults. We tend to give people lot of latitude in that department. And as I said when I gave you the warning, In all the time I have been an administrator at SFN, and that has been since its inception, I would be hard pressed to come up with a worse display of foul language and bad intent than the one you put on in that thread, in all of SFN. I understand that you sort of let yourself off the hook by claiming bias on my part, and I'm not really surprised. It's a classic responsibility shift. Almost everyone who has received that warning has claimed bias or unfair treatment.
Dude:
The POINT here is simple. Opinion which contain assertions of fact should not be treated differently than other assertions of fact. It is a logical fallacy, a false conflation in an attempt to shield one's assertion from criticism by comparing it to a purely subjective statement. |
Opinions are just as subject to challenge as any claim of fact. I agree. But being that it is an opinion it is understood that it's subjective by nature and lacking enough evidence to actually make it a claim of fact. It should be noted that there is a continuum here from weak opinion to middling to strong to well supported and on to what might reasonably be regarded as an objective claim to a fact. So depending on what part of the continuum the opinion falls, there is only so much one can reasonably demand in support of a conclusion that is inherently lacking the kind of proof necessary to support a claim to an objectively factual conclusion.
We can demand evidence, but should not be surprised if the evidence is weak. We are free to point out that based on the kind of evidence supplied, that the opinion is baloney or that it just may have some merit and be worth considering. In the case of opinion based on faulty induction and anecdotal evidence, it would not be unreasonable to dismiss the opinion as a rush to judgment or, in some cases, worth waiting for whatever evidence comes along before rejecting it adopting it as our own. In politics, we are often forced into that kind of position. We may lean one way or the other but we must wait until the facts that will satisfy us are in before forming our own opinion. And the rub is, there is almost always contradictory evidence that support another “conclusion.”
I asked you to tone it down because you were over the top with your insults. We tend to give people lot of latitude in that department. And as I said when I gave you the warning, In all the time I have been an administrator at SFN, and that has been since its inception, I would be hard pressed to come up with a worse display of foul language and bad intent than the one you put on in that thread, in all of SFN. I understand that you sort of let yourself off the hook by claiming bias on my part, and I'm not really surprised. It's a classic responsibility shift. Almost everyone who has received that warning has claimed bias or unfair treatment.
|
The thread is available for you to go back and actually read. I did not initiate the insults there, and I was far from the only person throwing them.
You do realize that you have just admitted to arbitrary moderation of a thread, rather than a rational and objective application of moderator powers?
The next step is to admit you were wrong to single me out of that whole tangle of shit-slinging, then apologize. My ability to creatively rhetoricate with profanity shouldn't be held against me. Thats like saying two of your kids were fighting, and you only punish the one who was winning the fight, because he was winning. (not that I'm claiming any kind of victory in that thread, the whole thing was pretty dumb)
Opinions are just as subject to challenge as any claim of fact. I agree. But being that it is an opinion it is understood that it's subjective by nature and lacking enough evidence to actually make it a claim of fact. It should be noted that there is a continuum here from weak opinion to middling to strong to well supported and on to what might reasonably be regarded as an objective claim to a fact. So depending on what part of the continuum the opinion falls, there is only so much one can reasonably demand in support of a conclusion that is inherently lacking the kind of proof necessary to support a claim to an objectively factual conclusion.
|
(bolding mine)
That is nonsense. Do you or do you not agree that (as we have already agreed, I think) an "opinion" can contain elements of both subjective statements and objective claims?
Even if you state a claim in tentative terms, that claim is subject to attack and defense.
"I think there is a good chance life exists elsewhere in the universe."
Clearly an "opinion", and clearly a statement that you should be prepared to defend if asked why you think it. Obviously tentative, and doesn't require a rigid defense, but you should be able to defend it none the less.
| She did not demand that you prove her wrong Dude. |
Umm... yes she did.
| What she actually did was to look for evidence herself (and found some in the party platform, which can be disputed based on who or why it was placed there) and asked if you have anything that might change her mind. I did not read that as a shift to put the burden off proof on you. In the context that the requests were made it was more that she was willing to look at other evidence. She said, and I am obviously paraphrasing, “here is what I have, which |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 05/26/2007 17:07:18 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 17:17:08 [Permalink]
|
God I hate fanning this flame but I must make a few comments after reading Kil's post. Where is the evidence for alternative opinions about the Green Party membership?
Originally posted by Kil
You were rightfully skeptical of the method by which bgal formed her opinion. I have no argument with your premise that her conclusion was a rush to judgment based on too small of a sampling. I have seen the booths set up by the Green Party at many a New Age expo and only concluded that the Green's know fertile ground to exploit with the idea of expanding their numbers. And still, I have no idea how many woo's are in the party. I have thoughts on the matter but they lack sufficient evidence for me to form what would be, for my standards, even a subjective conclusion.
That said, bgal thinks she does but readily admitted that the evidence would not support her conclusion to be raised to the level of a claim to a fact. Even with the demand for evidence, which she said she looked for, there was not enough to raise her opinion to a statement of fact level. And that is why it remains an opinion. |
You have, Kil, paraphrased my position correctly. With the exception I thought I had found a fair amount of supporting evidence. The party platform was only one piece of evidence, but it contained multiple woo positions, not a single one. And there was the one citation, I believe, where fluoridated water was seen as harmful. You would have to have a majority membership that didn't go along with an awful lot of the platform if there weren't a lot of woos in the party. And while people maybe don't take any party platform as literally as the platforms are stated, the Green Party is small enough, I think you would see more homogeneity than in the Democratic or Republican Parties.
The context of my original comment was that the fringe element in the Green Party would make the party ineffective as a viable challenge to the Democratic Party, therefore I felt my energy was better spent changing the Democratic Party from within rather than challenging it from a third party. In that context, my experience with people in general plus my personal observations were sufficient to support what I said. Because regardless of the degree of woo in the Green Party, the actual statement was, there was too much woo for mainstream America.
So on what basis is the presumption my position is wrong and needs be proven? Isn't there an equally invalid presumption the Green Party members are mostly more critically thinking and the woo members are in the minority in the party? And isn't that position just as suspect without evidence? Was more convincing evidence presented for that position?
In other words, what you claim requires proof should be either position. There is no reason to assume the Green Party is NOT full of woo believing members any more than there is reason to assume the party IS full of woo believing members.
As for "rushing to judgement", I think I have had sufficient experience with people that my conclusions about who would be attracted to join the Green Party plus my observations of those I know who are members, did not constitute such a "rush to judgment" as you might think.
In fact, it turned out the Party Platform supported my conclusion. And so far, little has been presented as evidence my opinion was misplaced. Here's some more evidence.
"Organizing Green Parties: Phasing Out "Grassroots" Democracy?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association; 2005-09-01
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 17:47:47 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal said:
The context of my original comment was that the fringe element in the Green Party would make the party ineffective as a viable challenge to the Democratic Party, therefore I felt my energy was better spent changing the Democratic Party from within rather than challenging it from a third party. In that context, my experience with people in general plus my personal observations were sufficient to support what I said. Because regardless of the degree of woo in the Green Party, the actual statement was, there was too much woo for mainstream America.
|
Play at historical revisionism all you like, it won't change the FACT that you said:
"The majority of the green party are magical thinkers."
And you NEVER were willing to revise that garbage to something rational.
Now get out troll. You don't get to participate in an argument between Kil and I when you refuse to read my posts.
AND YOU DON'T GET TO CHANGE THE US GREEN PARTY TO UK GREEN PARTY! THE US GREEN PARTY WAS THE POLITICAL PARTY YOU MADE DEROGATORY, FALSE, AND IDIOTIC COMMENTS ABOUT IN THE OTHER THREAD>
ffs...
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 17:57:58 [Permalink]
|
Bgal:
In other words, what you claim requires proof should be either position. There is no reason to assume the Green Party is NOT full of woo believing members any more than there is reason to assume the party IS full of woo believing members. |
Then why do you assume it is? You know, you really just did fan the flames…
This discussion is about what constitutes an opinion vs. claim to a fact. While the thread that it came from is important, ground central to the current debate, the actual subject of the debate in the thread is not the debate I am having with Dude.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 18:18:06 [Permalink]
|
There she goes again:Originally posted by beskeptigal
So on what basis is the presumption my position is wrong and needs be proven? Isn't there an equally invalid presumption the Green Party members are mostly more critically thinking and the woo members are in the minority in the party? And isn't that position just as suspect without evidence? Was more convincing evidence presented for that position?
In other words, what you claim requires proof should be either position. There is no reason to assume the Green Party is NOT full of woo believing members any more than there is reason to assume the party IS full of woo believing members. |
This is a classic red herring, used to distract from the matter under discussion (which beskeptigal doesn't even fully comprehend since she's only reading half of it). She clearly asks, "Even if I can't support my position, shouldn't someone else have to support the diametrically opposed position in order for mine to be invalid?"
And the answer, of course, is "not at all," because nobody was actually arguing the opposing position. b'gal made a positive, testable claim. It's not anyone else's responsibility to prove her wrong, it's up to her to demonstrate that she's correct. This is "Skepticism 101" stuff. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 18:18:17 [Permalink]
|
One other thing.
bgal:
No doubt you wouldn't have drawn the same early conclusion, Kil, but then perhaps there was more to my observation than was apparent by my post... |
In response to
Me:
That said, bgal thinks she does... |
says nothing about how you arrived at your opinion... So there was no reason to comment. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 20:58:54 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
This is a classic red herring, used to distract from the matter under discussion (which beskeptigal doesn't even fully comprehend since she's only reading half of it). She clearly asks, "Even if I can't support my position, shouldn't someone else have to support the diametrically opposed position in order for mine to be invalid?"
|
That is the crap she did all through the other thread. The same crap others in that thread were defending.
So here she goes again, Kil. Do you STILL doubt that she is demanding someone must prove her assertion wrong?
Do you still think her assertions of fact can be best described as opinions? Are her assertions phrased tentatively or definitively?
How can you take this for anything except the opposite of skepticism? So on what basis is the presumption my position is wrong and needs be proven? Isn't there an equally invalid presumption the Green Party members are mostly more critically thinking and the woo members are in the minority in the party? And isn't that position just as suspect without evidence? Was more convincing evidence presented for that position?
|
What possible reason would anyone have for resorting to multiple fallacies of logic to defend an opinion? She OBVIOUSLY doesn't consider her position on the Greens to be tentative!
I can cite multiple journal articles to support the contention that people have a big blind spot with regard to their own actions and opinions, when the subject is politics. They don't think critically. This is exactly what is happening here.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 22:32:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
That is the crap she did all through the other thread. The same crap others in that thread were defending. |
That's exactly why I said, "there she goes again," too. And she did the same to me in the 'Net Neutrality thread. After I'd asked for information in support of the Neutrality movement, she asked me to support the opposing view.
Turned out, in a later thread some months ago, that beskeptigal has come to some conclusions that she flatly stated are unquestionable. If you even ask questions about them, she gets incredibly defensive, asserts her self-confidence in her opinions as her main support, and becomes personally vindictive if you persist in asking questions. Because, she said, it's not worth her effort to educate anyone regarding the conclusions she's come to. If you don't already agree with her position on that list of subjects, she considers you a hopeless case, not deserving of her knowledge or help. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 23:33:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Bgal:
In other words, what you claim requires proof should be either position. There is no reason to assume the Green Party is NOT full of woo believing members any more than there is reason to assume the party IS full of woo believing members. |
Then why do you assume it is? You know, you really just did fan the flames…
This discussion is about what constitutes an opinion vs. claim to a fact. While the thread that it came from is important, ground central to the current debate, the actual subject of the debate in the thread is not the debate I am having with Dude.
|
I said it was going to fan the flames, Kil. I said I didn't want to but I knew it would.
I also thought I was clear about giving the reasons I initially drew the opinion I did. My experience with woos and my experience with Green Party members I knew was the initial reason I came to have my opinion.
The evidence I sought out after this controversy occurred supported the opinion I had formed based on my experience with woos and my experience with Green Party members.
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 23:35:35 [Permalink]
|
Regarding opinion vs fact, I already commented that was merely a continuum of certainty.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 23:53:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Regarding opinion vs fact, I already commented that was merely a continuum of certainty. |
Hmmm..."In my opinion, chocolate is the best ice cream flavor."
"In my opinion, modern evolutionary theory is the best explanation we have for the biological diversity we see on Earth." Two opinions, at opposite extremes on the continuum of subjectivity, but yet right next to each other on the continuum of certainty. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 00:15:14 [Permalink]
|
OK, Dave, you have succeeded in re-engaging me in a discussion, for the moment.
So opinion of one's personal preference is relevant here?
I am only using the certainty definition to address the issue at hand. In reality opinion and conviction can be indistinguishable or one can find distinctions if one chooses. None of that is helpful in resolving the issue at hand.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 05/27/2007 00:49:22 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
Bringing personal arguments home
Topic Locked
