Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Debating is useless

Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2014 11:25:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Debating pretty much anything whether it's religion or science, music, anything isn't going to bring objective truth. In logic, you are to take certain assumptions, but logic can only take you so far. This is where science comes in. It doesn't matter if you get into an argument and go back and forth, the result will probably be that neither of you will come to an agreement. We as humans rely on experience to learn from past behaviors and if that experience is missing, you can't reach someone.

That being said, we as humans should focus more on studying the universe through science and simply reserve personal beliefs for discussion. Science itself focuses more on proving and testing models which is more effective than dealing with Semantics. Yea there are debates, but evidence and strong analysis are also being done rather than logical arguing. I'll give a highlight:

Researchers are now discovering that logic was hardwired in our brains to win arguments - not to seek truth. By the way i strongly suggest you look into this.

http://www.nytimes.com...

Once this has been proven, no one can say anything about it unless they prove that it's scientifically inaccurate. Should we stop using logic? No, simply that if you want to objectively convince others of your propositions, the best way to do it is to show all the evidence in a discussion rather than a debate and if it's purely philosophical then it should be left to your own subjective experiences. That being said, as a Christian, i don't use the Cosmological argument, Ontological argument, or any argument for that matter to prove the existence of God because by definition, he is too complex to be understood by human terms.
WisdomFromAllSources
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2014 1:20:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
For personal spiritual and intellectual growth debating can be very effective.

But anybody who thinks that debating is the way to collective/social change, justice, etc. is deluding him/herself.

In his internet publication Power, Responsibility and Freedom, David Smail says it better than I can: http://www.davidsmail.info...

If you do not feel like searching that site for the relevant content I will tell you that he basically shows that things always turn out the way that they do because is the way that powerful interests want them to, not because people were persuaded through reason.
WisdomFromAllSources
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2014 1:22:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"If you do not feel like searching that site for the relevant content I will tell you that he basically shows that things always turn out the way that they do because is the way that powerful interests want them to, not because people were persuaded through reason."

Should have read:

"If you do not feel like searching that site for the relevant content I will tell you that he basically shows that things always turn out the way that they do because that is the way that powerful interests want them to, not because people were persuaded through reason."
a_drumming_dog
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2014 5:26:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/24/2014 2:07:04 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:

There is no objective truth.

Is that statement an objective truth?
If yes, then what you stated makes no sense (there is an objective truth, your statement)
If no, then it also makes no sense. (Then there is objective truth, which is contrary to your statement)

There obviously is objective truth in the world.
The truth will set you free
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2014 5:29:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/24/2014 5:26:01 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
At 9/24/2014 2:07:04 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:

There is no objective truth.

Is that statement an objective truth?
If yes, then what you stated makes no sense (there is an objective truth, your statement)
If no, then it also makes no sense. (Then there is objective truth, which is contrary to your statement)

You realise the logic of a paradox is that it works?

There obviously is objective truth in the world.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2014 10:42:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/24/2014 1:20:05 PM, WisdomFromAllSources wrote:
For personal spiritual and intellectual growth debating can be very effective.

But anybody who thinks that debating is the way to collective/social change, justice, etc. is deluding him/herself.

In his internet publication Power, Responsibility and Freedom, David Smail says it better than I can: http://www.davidsmail.info...

If you do not feel like searching that site for the relevant content I will tell you that he basically shows that things always turn out the way that they do because is the way that powerful interests want them to, not because people were persuaded through reason.

I would say that debating isn't spiritually practical. As a Christian, you can't debate God because he's too powerful to be argued for, it's all about a relationship. As for intellectually, i would disagree. Psychological studies show that we as humans are weak at using logic and often, abuse it for our own purposes. Debating is essentially confirmation bias as you can only consider your own viewpoints.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 5:28:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/24/2014 5:26:01 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
At 9/24/2014 2:07:04 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:

There is no objective truth.

Is that statement an objective truth?
If yes, then what you stated makes no sense (there is an objective truth, your statement)
If no, then it also makes no sense. (Then there is objective truth, which is contrary to your statement)

There obviously is objective truth in the world.

There's objective truth in the world, but people simply won't accept it. This is simply because we're stuck with our biases, choices, and beliefs.
WisdomFromAllSources
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 6:17:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I would say that debating isn't spiritually practical. As a Christian, you can't debate God because he's too powerful to be argued for, it's all about a relationship. As for intellectually, i would disagree. Psychological studies show that we as humans are weak at using logic and often, abuse it for our own purposes. Debating is essentially confirmation bias as you can only consider your own viewpoints.

It sounds like you mean that Christian apologetics is useless.

I do not think that a debate and apologetics are the same thing. I would say that a debate is a formal or informal exchange of arguments that is mostly a tool for communicating ideas, developing ideas, positioning one's self on issues, etc., not a contest to be won or a medium for persuading people.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 6:29:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 6:17:15 PM, WisdomFromAllSources wrote:
I would say that debating isn't spiritually practical. As a Christian, you can't debate God because he's too powerful to be argued for, it's all about a relationship. As for intellectually, i would disagree. Psychological studies show that we as humans are weak at using logic and often, abuse it for our own purposes. Debating is essentially confirmation bias as you can only consider your own viewpoints.


It sounds like you mean that Christian apologetics is useless.

I do not think that a debate and apologetics are the same thing. I would say that a debate is a formal or informal exchange of arguments that is mostly a tool for communicating ideas, developing ideas, positioning one's self on issues, etc., not a contest to be won or a medium for persuading people.

Christian Apologetics and debating aren't the same thing. You don't need to debate a person to get ideas across. Christian Apologetics is focused on refuting common claims against the Bible, it's for defense not for offense. Debating typically involves going on the offensive depending on which side you take. I disagree, debates exist because you want to persuade people of your position vs. the other person.
slo1
Posts: 4,341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 9:12:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 5:28:47 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/24/2014 5:26:01 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
At 9/24/2014 2:07:04 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:

There is no objective truth.

Is that statement an objective truth?
If yes, then what you stated makes no sense (there is an objective truth, your statement)
If no, then it also makes no sense. (Then there is objective truth, which is contrary to your statement)

There obviously is objective truth in the world.

There's objective truth in the world, but people simply won't accept it. This is simply because we're stuck with our biases, choices, and beliefs.

or is it not discoverable because:
1. It does not exist.
2. It exists and was not ever delivered in a concrete way to humanity which allows consensus.
3. It exists and there is no reliable method to evaluate the many competing authorities that claim to have discovered it.
4. It exists and there is subterfuge by an entity that does not want it to be discovered.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 2:08:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 5:28:47 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/24/2014 5:26:01 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
At 9/24/2014 2:07:04 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:

There is no objective truth.

Is that statement an objective truth?
If yes, then what you stated makes no sense (there is an objective truth, your statement)
If no, then it also makes no sense. (Then there is objective truth, which is contrary to your statement)

There obviously is objective truth in the world.

There's objective truth in the world, but people simply won't accept it. This is simply because we're stuck with our biases, choices, and beliefs.

Truth Seeker, the best way to learn philosophy is to get punched in the face repeatedly. Just keep getting punched.

Ancient monks used to teach their students philosophy by literally beating it into them. Until you start getting the crap beat out of you day in and day out, you won't ever learn. Also Endarkened is wrong there is objective truth.

Once Endarkened gets punched in the face a bunch more times, he'll learn this. Unfortunately some people never get punched in the face enough and die stupid.

Now I now out and preemptively thank some guy who hasn't been punched in the face enough for putting me on the weekly stupid.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 2:21:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 2:08:01 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/25/2014 5:28:47 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/24/2014 5:26:01 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
At 9/24/2014 2:07:04 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:

There is no objective truth.

Is that statement an objective truth?
If yes, then what you stated makes no sense (there is an objective truth, your statement)
If no, then it also makes no sense. (Then there is objective truth, which is contrary to your statement)

There obviously is objective truth in the world.

There's objective truth in the world, but people simply won't accept it. This is simply because we're stuck with our biases, choices, and beliefs.

Truth Seeker, the best way to learn philosophy is to get punched in the face repeatedly. Just keep getting punched.

Ancient monks used to teach their students philosophy by literally beating it into them. Until you start getting the crap beat out of you day in and day out, you won't ever learn. Also Endarkened is wrong there is objective truth.

Once Endarkened gets punched in the face a bunch more times, he'll learn this. Unfortunately some people never get punched in the face enough and die stupid.

Now I now out and preemptively thank some guy who hasn't been punched in the face enough for putting me on the weekly stupid.

lol what about getting graped in the mouth? :P
Porkloin
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 8:58:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/24/2014 11:25:26 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Debating pretty much anything whether it's religion or science, music, anything isn't going to bring objective truth.

I hardly think that makes it "useless." It makes some of us happy, after all.

Sometimes, it will indeed bring people to objective truth they had not to that point perceived.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 4:36:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/24/2014 11:25:26 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:

Science itself focuses more on proving and testing models which is more effective than dealing with Semantics.

Most of these models are based upon ideas, ideas that were developed using language, i.e. semantics.

Getting the semantics to as accurate a state as possible is part of what makes something scientific and not pseudo-science. That is why so much of scientific vocabulary is so esoteric.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 3:03:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Two words about science:

Plausible deniability.

The fact is just because facts exist doesn't mean evidence of facts exist. As the saying goes, "If a tree falls in a forest, but nobody hears it, did it really make a sound?"

Of course it did, but if you insisted on merely learning from experience, you wouldn't believe it.

You might argue that we can extrapolate through inductive reasoning that other trees make sounds when they fall.

That depends on stereotyping though. You're categorizing how objects interact and assuming that future similar objects will interact the same way.

This gets further complicated when dealing with society in contrast to nature as well. For example, human nature is diverse. Everyone doesn't behave the same way, so when you put people into scenarios, the same outcomes won't happen time and time again...

...and it gets even worse when discussing things like credit and blame. For example, if you get punched in the face, there won't necessarily be a camera that records that event. If someone pickpockets you, there won't necessarily be a witness.

Likewise, if you apply yourself to becomes successful, there isn't always a record of the process in advance of the result.

All of this said, debate has its limits. The fact is many people are jerks. They will rationalize whatever beliefs they need for their own self-interest. If you show how they're wrong, they'll just accuse you of being offensive in order to distance you from them whether it means leaving you, or getting you to leave.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 6:44:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/24/2014 11:25:26 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Debating pretty much anything whether it's religion or science, music, anything isn't going to bring objective truth. In logic, you are to take certain assumptions, but logic can only take you so far. This is where science comes in. It doesn't matter if you get into an argument and go back and forth, the result will probably be that neither of you will come to an agreement. We as humans rely on experience to learn from past behaviors and if that experience is missing, you can't reach someone.

That being said, we as humans should focus more on studying the universe through science and simply reserve personal beliefs for discussion. Science itself focuses more on proving and testing models which is more effective than dealing with Semantics. Yea there are debates, but evidence and strong analysis are also being done rather than logical arguing. I'll give a highlight:

Researchers are now discovering that logic was hardwired in our brains to win arguments - not to seek truth. By the way i strongly suggest you look into this.

http://www.nytimes.com...

Once this has been proven, no one can say anything about it unless they prove that it's scientifically inaccurate. Should we stop using logic? No, simply that if you want to objectively convince others of your propositions, the best way to do it is to show all the evidence in a discussion rather than a debate and if it's purely philosophical then it should be left to your own subjective experiences. That being said, as a Christian, i don't use the Cosmological argument, Ontological argument, or any argument for that matter to prove the existence of God because by definition, he is too complex to be understood by human terms.

Debating for the most part is useless, but for the .01 % that are willing to be intellectually honest and not poisoned by confirmation bias you might have a 1% chance of changing their mind.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 10:04:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 6:44:29 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/24/2014 11:25:26 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Debating pretty much anything whether it's religion or science, music, anything isn't going to bring objective truth. In logic, you are to take certain assumptions, but logic can only take you so far. This is where science comes in. It doesn't matter if you get into an argument and go back and forth, the result will probably be that neither of you will come to an agreement. We as humans rely on experience to learn from past behaviors and if that experience is missing, you can't reach someone.

That being said, we as humans should focus more on studying the universe through science and simply reserve personal beliefs for discussion. Science itself focuses more on proving and testing models which is more effective than dealing with Semantics. Yea there are debates, but evidence and strong analysis are also being done rather than logical arguing. I'll give a highlight:

Researchers are now discovering that logic was hardwired in our brains to win arguments - not to seek truth. By the way i strongly suggest you look into this.

http://www.nytimes.com...

Once this has been proven, no one can say anything about it unless they prove that it's scientifically inaccurate. Should we stop using logic? No, simply that if you want to objectively convince others of your propositions, the best way to do it is to show all the evidence in a discussion rather than a debate and if it's purely philosophical then it should be left to your own subjective experiences. That being said, as a Christian, i don't use the Cosmological argument, Ontological argument, or any argument for that matter to prove the existence of God because by definition, he is too complex to be understood by human terms.

Debating for the most part is useless, but for the .01 % that are willing to be intellectually honest and not poisoned by confirmation bias you might have a 1% chance of changing their mind.

Yeah and not alot of people are open minded or willing to admit they're wrong even sometimes.
chagak
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 2:20:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 3:03:49 PM, Daktoria wrote:
Two words about science:

Plausible deniability.

The fact is just because facts exist doesn't mean evidence of facts exist. As the saying goes, "If a tree falls in a forest, but nobody hears it, did it really make a sound?"

Of course it did, but if you insisted on merely learning from experience, you wouldn't believe it.

You might argue that we can extrapolate through inductive reasoning that other trees make sounds when they fall.

That depends on stereotyping though. You're categorizing how objects interact and assuming that future similar objects will interact the same way.

This gets further complicated when dealing with society in contrast to nature as well. For example, human nature is diverse. Everyone doesn't behave the same way, so when you put people into scenarios, the same outcomes won't happen time and time again...

...and it gets even worse when discussing things like credit and blame. For example, if you get punched in the face, there won't necessarily be a camera that records that event. If someone pickpockets you, there won't necessarily be a witness.

Likewise, if you apply yourself to becomes successful, there isn't always a record of the process in advance of the result.

All of this said, debate has its limits. The fact is many people are jerks. They will rationalize whatever beliefs they need for their own self-interest. If you show how they're wrong, they'll just accuse you of being offensive in order to distance you from them whether it means leaving you, or getting you to leave.

I absolutely agree with this.
"I'm not concerned with you liking or disliking me. All I ask is that you respect me as a human being." - Jackie Robinson

Political Compass:
Economic Left/Right: 0.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.67

http://chagak.net...
http://plaisirephemere.blogspot.com...
http://chagak.dreamwidth.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 11:59:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/24/2014 2:07:04 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
There is no objective truth.

Is that statement objectively true?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 1:22:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 3:03:49 PM, Daktoria wrote:

All of this said, debate has its limits. The fact is many people are jerks. They will rationalize whatever beliefs they need for their own self-interest. If you show how they're wrong, they'll just accuse you of being offensive in order to distance you from them whether it means leaving you, or getting you to leave.

Agree. This website ostensibly has a policy to preclude such accusations, but I severely question the execution of this policy by the moderators.

As it is, IMHO anyone that resorts to personal attacks in the face of a convincing argument has pretty much conceded their side of a position.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 6:30:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 11:59:28 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 9/24/2014 2:07:04 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
There is no objective truth.

Is that statement objectively true?

What I know about "objectives" is MCQs lol
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 1:04:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 2:20:23 PM, chagak wrote:
At 9/30/2014 3:03:49 PM, Daktoria wrote:
Two words about science:

Plausible deniability.

The fact is just because facts exist doesn't mean evidence of facts exist. As the saying goes, "If a tree falls in a forest, but nobody hears it, did it really make a sound?"

Of course it did, but if you insisted on merely learning from experience, you wouldn't believe it.

You might argue that we can extrapolate through inductive reasoning that other trees make sounds when they fall.

That depends on stereotyping though. You're categorizing how objects interact and assuming that future similar objects will interact the same way.

This gets further complicated when dealing with society in contrast to nature as well. For example, human nature is diverse. Everyone doesn't behave the same way, so when you put people into scenarios, the same outcomes won't happen time and time again...

...and it gets even worse when discussing things like credit and blame. For example, if you get punched in the face, there won't necessarily be a camera that records that event. If someone pickpockets you, there won't necessarily be a witness.

Likewise, if you apply yourself to becomes successful, there isn't always a record of the process in advance of the result.

All of this said, debate has its limits. The fact is many people are jerks. They will rationalize whatever beliefs they need for their own self-interest. If you show how they're wrong, they'll just accuse you of being offensive in order to distance you from them whether it means leaving you, or getting you to leave.

I absolutely agree with this.

Same here.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
computertooter
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 11:10:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Debating is absolutely necessary for growth. If everyone assumed that, for instance, man cannot fly and accepted that as irrefutable perhaps no one would have invented planes.

As to science, the essence of which is to question everything, just because something proves to be false does not mean we have not learned something. Here is a quote from Larry Garland who posted this in response to an article about traveling faster than the speed of light in the New York Times:

"A paradigm shift occurs after something truly new comes along in science. Such a shift will occur once again if/when the speed of light is broken. To consider the problem differently, consider how science fiction author Raymond F. Jones turned the process on its head. In his story titled "Noise Level," which first appeared in the magazine Astounding in December 1952, he destroyed the paradigm that antigravity was impossible. In the storyline, he deceived a group of competitive scientists into thinking that the harnessing of antigravity had already been achieved, and then set those scientists the task of duplicating the new invention that could master gravity. Of course, success came because the process started with the belief that it was possible rather than with the "knowledge" that it was scientifically impossible. Creativity springs from just such a soupy sea of dreamed-up possibility".

Our history is rife with examples of accomplishments that were once considered impossible. All because someone took the other side. While I understand the frustration with those who adhere to their beliefs and refuse to change but perhaps they serve a purpose in that it makes us more determined to prove we are right.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2014 8:50:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 11:10:27 AM, computertooter wrote:
Debating is absolutely necessary for growth. If everyone assumed that, for instance, man cannot fly and accepted that as irrefutable perhaps no one would have invented planes.

As to science, the essence of which is to question everything, just because something proves to be false does not mean we have not learned something. Here is a quote from Larry Garland who posted this in response to an article about traveling faster than the speed of light in the New York Times:

"A paradigm shift occurs after something truly new comes along in science. Such a shift will occur once again if/when the speed of light is broken. To consider the problem differently, consider how science fiction author Raymond F. Jones turned the process on its head. In his story titled "Noise Level," which first appeared in the magazine Astounding in December 1952, he destroyed the paradigm that antigravity was impossible. In the storyline, he deceived a group of competitive scientists into thinking that the harnessing of antigravity had already been achieved, and then set those scientists the task of duplicating the new invention that could master gravity. Of course, success came because the process started with the belief that it was possible rather than with the "knowledge" that it was scientifically impossible. Creativity springs from just such a soupy sea of dreamed-up possibility".

Our history is rife with examples of accomplishments that were once considered impossible. All because someone took the other side. While I understand the frustration with those who adhere to their beliefs and refuse to change but perhaps they serve a purpose in that it makes us more determined to prove we are right.

Planes got invented through creativity, knowledge, and experimentation, not by debating. As for Science, there is a lot of creativity and possibilities, but mainly it's about experimenting and proving your ideas correct.
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2014 9:18:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/24/2014 10:42:57 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/24/2014 1:20:05 PM, WisdomFromAllSources wrote:
For personal spiritual and intellectual growth debating can be very effective.

But anybody who thinks that debating is the way to collective/social change, justice, etc. is deluding him/herself.

In his internet publication Power, Responsibility and Freedom, David Smail says it better than I can: http://www.davidsmail.info...

If you do not feel like searching that site for the relevant content I will tell you that he basically shows that things always turn out the way that they do because is the way that powerful interests want them to, not because people were persuaded through reason.

I would say that debating isn't spiritually practical. As a Christian, you can't debate God because he's too powerful to be argued for, it's all about a relationship. As for intellectually, i would disagree.

Wow..........if there was ever a more absurd argument for God's existence than that, then I want to give up with life.
praise the lord Chin Chin
computertooter
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2014 11:56:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Planes got invented through creativity, knowledge, and experimentation, not by debating. As for Science, there is a lot of creativity and possibilities, but mainly it's about experimenting and proving your ideas correct.

I will argue that the debate on whether or not we could fly like the birds took place before planes were thought up.
Student4Life1975
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 5:45:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2014 11:25:26 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Debating pretty much anything whether it's religion or science, music, anything isn't going to bring objective truth. In logic, you are to take certain assumptions, but logic can only take you so far. This is where science comes in. It doesn't matter if you get into an argument and go back and forth, the result will probably be that neither of you will come to an agreement. We as humans rely on experience to learn from past behaviors and if that experience is missing, you can't reach someone.

That being said, we as humans should focus more on studying the universe through science and simply reserve personal beliefs for discussion. Science itself focuses more on proving and testing models which is more effective than dealing with Semantics. Yea there are debates, but evidence and strong analysis are also being done rather than logical arguing. I'll give a highlight:

Researchers are now discovering that logic was hardwired in our brains to win arguments - not to seek truth. By the way i strongly suggest you look into this.

http://www.nytimes.com...

Once this has been proven, no one can say anything about it unless they prove that it's scientifically inaccurate. Should we stop using logic? No, simply that if you want to objectively convince others of your propositions, the best way to do it is to show all the evidence in a discussion rather than a debate and if it's purely philosophical then it should be left to your own subjective experiences. That being said, as a Christian, i don't use the Cosmological argument, Ontological argument, or any argument for that matter to prove the existence of God because by definition, he is too complex to be understood by human terms.

Interesting. I agree that the vast majority of people (within the framework of an argument or debate) are far more concerned with maintaining their point of view rather than opening their mind to the alternative argument. Sam Harris the Author and Neuroscientist has been in countless debates on various topics, and when asked how many times he actually witnessed his opponent change their mind right infront of him on even a small portion of their point of view, he said once or twice at the most, and followed up that most people are pretty good at covering up their emotional changes in frame of mind anyways.

I've always thought conversations do very little to change the way people think, confirmation bais is a tough adversary. People change by first hand experience more than anything else. An example would be I can spend days debating someone who hates Gay people on how wrong they are in their point of view, and get essentially nowhere. But now imagine that same person driving home and gets broadsided in an intersection causing his car to catch fire. He's unconscious and wakes up two days later in the hospital only to be told by his wife and kids at his bedside that a Gay man pulled him from his burning car and saved his life. Even if it doesnt change him, it would have a far greater chance of doing so than mere words ever could.

Whenever I have a viewpoint on a topic I try to use scenario visualisations to imagine a situation where my viewpoint would be challenged in a way that would quite possibly change it altogether. It works quite well in helping me gain perspective on any given topic.
there is no progress without compromise"
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 12:00:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2014 11:25:26 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Debating pretty much anything whether it's religion or science, music, anything isn't going to bring objective truth.
In my eyes, debate is not meant to do so. It is intended to examine our claims, and to ensure they are sound.

Yes, this in no way implies they are infallible, but it does mean that it is reliable. If your points can consistently hold up to the scrutiny of formidable opponents, it becomes a general precedent. This precedent can be broken if an opponent can break this claim. This claim may eventually be broken as well.

This is the way in which knowledge progresses, through revisions by dissenters.

That is the way I view debate.
In logic, you are to take certain assumptions, but logic can only take you so far.
Could you please elaborate? I am unfamiliar with these assumptions
This is where science comes in.
Debate and science are not incompatible. Scientific studies are consistently used in debate, and science is debated. They work hand in hand.
It doesn't matter if you get into an argument and go back and forth, the result will probably be that neither of you will come to an agreement. We as humans rely on experience to learn from past behaviors and if that experience is missing, you can't reach someone.
This seems to imply that closed-mindedness is bad, not debate.
That being said, we as humans should focus more on studying the universe through science and simply reserve personal beliefs for discussion.
How are you defining debate?

I define debate as "[to] argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner." This definition, directly from Google, seems to encompass discussion. Argue, from the same source, is "exchange or express diverging or opposite views, typically in a heated or angry way." "Typically" is of great importance in this definition. This word implies a generality, not an integral feature.

In short, it seems that a discussion of ideals is considered a debate.
Science itself focuses more on proving and testing models which is more effective than dealing with Semantics. Yea there are debates, but evidence and strong analysis are also being done rather than logical arguing. I'll give a highlight:

Again, this does not seem to exclude this proposal from being a debate.

Researchers are now discovering that logic was hardwired in our brains to win arguments - not to seek truth. By the way i strongly suggest you look into this.

http://www.nytimes.com...
This article only states that a new theory seems to fit into the theory of evolution, as we understand it today. I can not discern that the psychologists have found conclusive evidence from the article.
Once this has been proven, no one can say anything about it unless they prove that it's scientifically inaccurate. Should we stop using logic? No, simply that if you want to objectively convince others of your propositions, the best way to do it is to show all the evidence in a discussion rather than a debate and if it's purely philosophical then it should be left to your own subjective experiences.
Replied above
That being said, as a Christian, i don't use the Cosmological argument, Ontological argument, or any argument for that matter to prove the existence of God because by definition, he is too complex to be understood by human terms.
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 9:54:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 12:00:39 PM, Nac wrote:

Nac, would you like to join the Church of NAC? It has your name in it, and I think you would be a good fit.

If you have any questions, let me know, and I will answer them.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.