|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2007 : 03:56:16 [Permalink]
|
Dave W: But, let's see how it goes. I replied to your demand that I provide evidence that the UK Greens are different from the US Greens before I saw your presentation of evidence that the UK Greens are different from the US Greens, which came afterwards chronologically. For my part in those miscommunications, I apologize.
Right, Dave. Missed that. That fixes everything. No sarcasm in that paragraph at all. I presented evidence the UK Greens are different from the US Greens? So you're claiming I proved your point so you didn't need to and that isn't sarcastic? Bull!
Talk about lacking a good faith effort. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 06/02/2007 03:58:29 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 06/02/2007 : 06:38:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Right, Dave. Missed that. That fixes everything. No sarcasm in that paragraph at all. I presented evidence the UK Greens are different from the US Greens? So you're claiming I proved your point so you didn't need to and that isn't sarcastic? Bull!
Talk about lacking a good faith effort. |
Nope, that was a simple mistake on my part. Replace the second "different from" with "same as." You provided evidence that they are the same. I apologize again. |
- 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 - 06/02/2007 : 18:55:50 [Permalink]
|
Now that apology I accept. You can see why I might have found that statement nothing but sarcastic.
So the post I wrote that followed, I retract since it was based on a series of tragic events.
You recognize I made no demand Dude prove anything since he was equally obligated to prove his claims, so may I assume those statements by you are now moot?
I stand by my assessment of the underlying emotional issue involved in our disputes. We have different philosophies. I believe one merely states an opinion of disagreement. It appears to me you believe an opinion of disagreement also means the person you disagree with is obligated meet certain expectations of yours.
In the specific case of Dude v BeSkep, it's was one thing to describe the logic fallacy you noted, it was quite another to describe it as an actual obligation to provide more. In other words, asking someone to provide evidence proving them wrong can certainly be pointed out as "not a valid argument". But I would couch that as "I'm not convinced". You framed it as "you are obligated to provide a valid argument." There were of course more issues involved in this specific case, but there is still an underlying philosophy of claiming one is obligated to meet someone else's expectations that we differ on.
If you make an attempt to see why such a philosophical difference might cause a conflict I will take back all the related conclusions being anal had anything to do with it. In fact, I'll apologize for that anyway because I think I see the real issue more clearly now. I might also ignore all your name calling and insults as water under the bridge. That depends on your desire to resolve this or maintain the war. It doesn't mean I'm ready to shake hands. And you probably aren't either from the sounds of your posts. But I will try to be civil.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2007 : 23:02:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I stand by my assessment of the underlying emotional issue involved in our disputes. We have different philosophies. I believe one merely states an opinion of disagreement. It appears to me you believe an opinion of disagreement also means the person you disagree with is obligated meet certain expectations of yours. |
Unfortunately, your assessment remains incorrect.| In the specific case of Dude v BeSkep, it's was one thing to describe the logic fallacy you noted, it was quite another to describe it as an actual obligation to provide more. In other words, asking someone to provide evidence proving them wrong can certainly be pointed out as "not a valid argument". But I would couch that as "I'm not convinced". You framed it as "you are obligated to provide a valid argument." There were of course more issues involved in this specific case, but there is still an underlying philosophy of claiming one is obligated to meet someone else's expectations that we differ on. |
The underlying philosophy that I intend to spread (ideally, worldwide) in order to help fulfill the SFN's mission is one in which arguments that are less than convincing are modified to be convincing. If I see logical holes in your argument or missing evidence, I want you to fix your argument. I want you to be right, but more than that, I want to understand why you're right. A faulty argument doesn't allow me to follow along. I don't learn anything through poor logic or unsupported premises.
You're not being singled out, either. I want Jerome and Verlch and everyone else to be able to put forth arguments which have bulletproof logic, premises and support. Only in that way can I be truly informed about whatever the subject is. Bad argumentation not only makes the proponent look bad, but it shortchanges me, too, if the proponent is actually correct.
And I won't exclude myself. Nobody here has any problems telling me I screwed up, and when they do, I think it through and either fix the problem or explain why it's not a problem. Sometimes it takes many posts before everyone's in agreement. But no matter what "side" of things I'm on, I usually learn something in the process.
Plus, I try to live by the ethic of reciprocity. Had our roles been reversed, I would have expected you to have called me on several issues over the last few months. You've already told me that I shouldn't make such expectations of you, so I no longer will. Nor will I expect you to be interested in the specifics of the problems I've had with you, so I will refrain from re-listing them.
But I think that the true philosophical difference between us is not one of expectations, but instead over the purpose of this web site. Perhaps you agree with our mission, but don't want to be involved in the nitty-gritty. Maybe you think the word "community" is incompatible with the Internet. Or maybe you think we're entirely on a fool's errand. No matter what, some of your previous statements lead me to believe that you wouldn't be very comfortable in the world I would create.| If you make an attempt to see why such a philosophical difference might cause a conflict I will take back all the related conclusions being anal had anything to do with it. In fact, I'll apologize for that anyway because I think I see the real issue more clearly now. I might also ignore all your name calling and insults as water under the bridge. That depends on your desire to resolve this or maintain the war. It doesn't mean I'm ready to shake hands. And you probably aren't either from the sounds of your posts. But I will try to be civil. |
I appreciate the olive branch, but must politely decline your apologies because I'm pretty sure that you still don't understand the issues here. If you want, we can discuss this some more, and once we get to the point where you're not guessing about what might have insulted me, you can choose to apologize or not. Or, we don't discuss it and you don't apologize at all. Either way is fine with me. Zero expectations.
For my end, I apologize now for the name calling. But that's it. Because I know for a fact that at least one of the things you considered to be insulting wasn't something that I did or said, and so I will not make a blanket apology which might cover it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 00:02:18 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal said:
| Dude, guess you missed the part where you made an assertion and I don't care if you support it, and the part where I requested the invisible board rules be made visible that say I owe you anything. |
You are fabricating details to make this fit into your warped version of reality.
That is called a delusion. You should seek medical attention.
The substance of my argument with you has been laid out, by me, a dozen times. In this thread and the other one. You made an assertion of fact, I asked you for evidence, you laid out some ridiculous anecdote of personal experience and challenged me to prove you wrong.
But hey, if you are unable to grasp the problem with that, then we literally have nothing further to discuss. Your pages and pages of imbecilic ranting, falsely conflating different political parties, faulty induction, and other logical fallacies amount to nothing other than a testament to how far you are willing to carry your delusion. It speaks for itself.
|
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 06/03/2007 00:05:15 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 01:07:13 [Permalink]
|
I'll get back to this Dave W when I have more time. In the meantime let me just point out you are guilty of one of the same logic fallacies you accuse others of. You assumed I said one philosophy over the other was superior. When what I actually said was the fact we have different philosophies is a source of conflict. I did say which I prefer but made no statement assigning any other value.
I should also add that comparing me to Verlch or Jerome was a seriously false analogy.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 06/03/2007 01:08:37 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 07:31:17 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal said:
I should also add that comparing me to Verlch or Jerome was a seriously false analogy.
|
Is it? Because you seem to have the same problem understanding basic concepts in logic like they do.
|
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 - 06/03/2007 : 08:58:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I'll get back to this Dave W when I have more time. In the meantime let me just point out you are guilty of one of the same logic fallacies you accuse others of. You assumed I said one philosophy over the other was superior. When what I actually said was the fact we have different philosophies is a source of conflict. I did say which I prefer but made no statement assigning any other value. |
I didn't assume anything about what you said. I discussed a part of my philosophy that's certainly in conflict with yours and why it means that your assessment is incorrect. While I do place great value on it, I don't recall ever saying that my philosophy is better than yours, only that you wouldn't feel comfortable if everyone else adopted mine. Whether your philosophy is superior or not is irrelevant to what I said.| I should also add that comparing me to Verlch or Jerome was a seriously false analogy. |
If those were comparisons, then I also must have compared you to "everyone else" and to me. The only way you're alike is that I want them to have and use the same skill set that I want you and I to have and use. I neither said nor implied that you currently have the same skills or employ them identically.
If my goal were to make everyone millionaires, would it be a "false analogy" to include the guy with $999,999 along with the penniless hobos in my plan of action? (Now there's an analogy: you're the almost-as-rich-as-I-prefer person, while Jerome and Verlch have nothing.) |
- 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 - 06/03/2007 : 09:49:29 [Permalink]
|
Dude:
You made an assertion of fact… |
I still think this part of your take is questionable in the context of the larger issue yet to be explored. (We started discussing it, but that went to hell.) I also think that it can't be resolved until we agree on what constitutes an assertion of fact. And perhaps that will never happen. It will certainly not happen in this current debate.
I'm going to suggest that you walk away due to a lack of progress in resolving the issue of what elements must be present for a statement to qualify as a genuine assertion of fact. That question was lost in the fray several pages back, much to my dismay.
We're not done discussing that question Dude. I'm not asking you to do any rethinking of your position at this time or to compromise on what you believe to be true in the context of this argument and your take on the rules of logic and critical thinking. But it is easy to see that no resolution is likely to come from this debate in this thread at this time based on the way that it is going.
So why spin your wheels?
If you like, when we can set the personal stuff aside, perhaps we can start a thread to continue our discussion. My thinking is we will need to dissociate the debate from the party thread. Maybe we can do that by setting up a fresh hypothetical scenario with past baggage like this thread and the party thread to be deemed as off limits to anyone and everyone who wants to take part in the debate.
|
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 - 06/03/2007 : 13:14:47 [Permalink]
|
Kil said:
| I still think this part of your take is questionable in the context of the larger issue yet to be explored. (We started discussing it, but that went to hell.) I also think that it can't be resolved until we agree on what constitutes an assertion of fact. And perhaps that will never happen. |
I'll state, with reasonable confidence, that anytime someone says, "The majority of X are Y", I will consider it to be an assertion of fact.
Even beskeptigal knows she was wrong to make that statement, and to then defend it... she modified it (finally) to something reasonable a couple of pages ago.
The argument has now evolved into one about her imbecilic assertion that my demand for evidence equates to me taking up a position opposite hers, which I must then provide evidence to defend...
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 05:13:38 [Permalink]
|
I see my digital bitch slap had no effect on the arguement. I'll try again.
This is how this thread should have gone, (personal messages)
Be-Dave I get the feeling that you have some bias against me, insisting on evidence no matter what I post.
Dave-I dont believe I am acting biasly, however if I did so unintentionally, I apologise.
You two are among the few who bother to 'prove' people wrong dont waste all your efforts by arguing about arguements.
End of story. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 06/04/2007 05:14:13 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 06:58:56 [Permalink]
|
I probably haven't been following this thread as closely as I should have, in my capacity as moderator. Though I admit that I'm no longer sure who's arguing what, it seems that things are getting unnecessarily heated. All the people who are participating in it are valued SFN regulars, and I (and the rest of the staff) would hate to lose one of you out of disgust or frustration at the tone of things.
With this in mind, perhaps everyone should take a step back and try to hold off on the more pointed comments.
Please? |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 11:12:04 [Permalink]
|
BPS said:
You two are among the few who bother to 'prove' people wrong dont waste all your efforts by arguing about arguements.
|
It is fundamental to our ability to communicate with each other. If we aren't all using the same grammar, there is no point in having a debate.
The inability to understand and apply the basics of logic and critical thinking makes debate a futile proposition. When it gets to this point, the only real course is to try and correct the deficiency.
The problem here is that beskeptigal is so entrenched in her personal political ideology that she can't think or debate rationally on the subject. No one in their rational mind would try to defend "the majority of greens are magical thinkers". She knows that is not a defensible position to take in a skeptics forum. If she had started with "I am of the opinion the Green Party is too full of woo to be a viable 3rd party." instead, then that other thread would not have degenerated into the fuck-you fest.
Instead, she resorted to multiple logical fallacies and stuck to her claim that "the majority of greens are magical thinkers". All arguments about opinions aside, if part of your "opinion" is some assertion of fact, then that assertion needs to be tentatively phrased and backed by evidence that you can present when asked.
This topic underlies so much of what is wrong with communications, news media, politics, and the general public discourse in the world today. It also leads directly to the mission statement of this website and forums. Something about skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact.
|
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 - 06/04/2007 : 12:18:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
This is how this thread should have gone, (personal messages)
Be-Dave I get the feeling that you have some bias against me, insisting on evidence no matter what I post.
Dave-I dont believe I am acting biasly, however if I did so unintentionally, I apologise. |
Except that's not the discussion beskeptigal and I are having, and never was.| You two are among the few who bother to 'prove' people wrong dont waste all your efforts by arguing about arguements. |
The "meta-argument" about what constitutes a good argument is important, is it not?
Cune: for what it's worth, I'm about as calm at this stage as I've ever been - in this discussion or out of it. I've somehow acheived some sort of Zen-like state of peace with regards to this debate. I hope my posts will reflect it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2007 : 06:57:35 [Permalink]
|
Sorry, Ill just shut up.
Let me know when the pit-fighting begins. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Bringing personal arguments home
Topic Locked
