The Art of Disagreeing

The Art of Disagreeing

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

July 9th, 2010, 12:21 pm #1


The Power of Refutation

The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work. To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a "smoking gun"; a passage -in whatever you disagree with- you feel is mistaken, point it out and explain why it is mistaken. 

The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point. Truly refuting the central point means one has to identify it first, then commit explicitly to it. The force of a refutation therefore, depends on what you refute and how you do it. A truly effective refutation would look something  like this:

"The (poster's) main point seems to be X, as it says:

- quotation -

This is wrong for the following reasons .....................

These reasons show the (poster's) main point wrong because .....................

Therefore ....................."


If you can't find a "smoking gun"; the central point to disagree with, and argue anyway, you may be arguing with a "straw man" (and in effect with and against yourself) . 


- http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/


- http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skep ... ments.html

- http://changingminds.org/disciplines/ar ... _alpha.htm


- http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/index.htm


If reasoning and logic is applied properly, the truth appears: obvious and simple.




People : intrinsically intelligent.

When people turn together, they could become a herd.
When people turn a herd, they could become sheeple.
When people turn sheeple, they could become dumb animals.
When people turn dumb animals, they become treated as such.




New!! Improved!! Now With T-Formula!!


The human brain can only comprehend 3 categories to put information in
Quote
Like
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

July 9th, 2010, 12:39 pm #2


Reasoning comes in three basic forms: abductive, inductive and deductive.

In the realm of argumentation, "deductive" means deducing from the general to the specific.

In the realm of reasoning, "sound" means that premises are true (unambiguous).

In the realm of logic, "valid" means that premises are necessarily (logically) connected.

A deductive argument that follows a valid and sound path infers a true conclusion, always.


- (dis)agreement doesn't render anything less or more true/false

- (dis)agreement might tell us something about the one doing the (dis)agreeing

- (dis)agreement doesn't tell us anything about the thing (dis)agreed with




People : intrinsically intelligent.

When people turn together, they could become a herd.
When people turn a herd, they could become sheeple.
When people turn sheeple, they could become dumb animals.
When people turn dumb animals, they become treated as such.


<img alt="[linked image]" src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc31 ... esmall.jpg">

New!! Improved!! Now With T-Formula!!
<img alt="[linked image]" src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc31 ... tworks.gif">

The human brain can only comprehend 3 categories to put information in
Last edited by JVH on July 9th, 2010, 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 13th, 2010, 2:50 pm

July 9th, 2010, 5:31 pm #3

The Power of Refutation

The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work. To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a "smoking gun"; a passage -in whatever you disagree with- you feel is mistaken, point it out and explain why it is mistaken. 

The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point. Truly refuting the central point means one has to identify it first, then commit explicitly to it. The force of a refutation therefore, depends on what you refute and how you do it. A truly effective refutation would look something  like this:

"The (poster's) main point seems to be X, as it says:

- quotation -

This is wrong for the following reasons .....................

These reasons show the (poster's) main point wrong because .....................

Therefore ....................."


If you can't find a "smoking gun"; the central point to disagree with, and argue anyway, you may be arguing with a "straw man" (and in effect with and against yourself) . 


- http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/


- http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skep ... ments.html

- http://changingminds.org/disciplines/ar ... _alpha.htm


- http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/index.htm


If reasoning and logic is applied properly, the truth appears: obvious and simple.




People : intrinsically intelligent.

When people turn together, they could become a herd.
When people turn a herd, they could become sheeple.
When people turn sheeple, they could become dumb animals.
When people turn dumb animals, they become treated as such.




New!! Improved!! Now With T-Formula!!


The human brain can only comprehend 3 categories to put information in
The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point. Truly refuting the central point means one has to identify it first, then commit explicitly to it. The force of a refutation therefore, depends on what you refute and how you do it. A truly effective refutation would look something like this:

"The (poster's) main point seems to be arguments are of establishing or refuting a point, as it says:

- quotation: "The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point. Truly refuting the central point means one has to identify it first, then commit explicitly to it. The force of a refutation therefore, depends on what you refute and how you do it. A truly effective refutation would look something like..."

This is wrong for the following reasons .....................
Posing various counter arguments, and questioning a logical proposition & its assumptions, can be done to simply understand & clarify the argument, its language, and/or another person's perspective. There's no requirement that the objective be to support or refute the argument. The goal of understanding and clarifying is equally valuable.

These reasons show the (poster's) main point wrong because .....................
Not necessarily wrong, simply incomplete and focused on a single objective while not considering that there are other valid objectives as well.

Therefore .....................
Discussions, arguments, and debates are a good thing because they provide more than the simple arguments presented - whether the arguments are valid or not so much.


Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 8th, 2003, 1:16 am

July 10th, 2010, 12:08 am #4

The purpose of debating is generally NOT to ESTABLISH fact because ... if something is already factual, there's nothing to debate ... because the facts speak for themselves.

On this board, for example, there's a lot of arguing going on but there isn't any real debate. (Arguing and debating are entirely different things.)

A true debate is structured and follows rules. Argument has no rules and usually turns into name-calling whereas, a true debate maintains respect from both parties.

I watched another Dan Barker debate last night ... one of Barker's earlier ones. This, I believe, is an example of a TRUE debate ... where both sides were more balanced ... where a CHRISTIAN actually had some knowledge and some zip!~ Fernandes actually managed to put Barker on the spot so well, Barker came out saying something absolutely stupid! Fernandes asked him if he could come up with an example from real life experience where ... an EXPLOSION (Big Bang, eh?) had produced a positive and non-destructive result. Barker quickly quipped back that if he ran out of milk, he'd get into his car to go buy some milk and explosions inside of his engine produced the positive result of propelling him to the store!! (gad that's dumb!~) Barker later, sheepishly admitted that it WAS a real grasp-at-straws come-back.

But yeah ... debates are about topics which haven't yet been determined one way or the other. The purpose is to allow the audience (and perhaps debaters themselves) to HEAR the different views without interruption ... and to expand their own knowledge on the topic. A good debate is a learning tool and not a stifling burial.

I came away from watching this, with a couple of new realizations, (I think) ...

Christian debaters, arguing for the existence of God, use the same set arguments repeatedly and one of them is the idea of an over-arching authority to determine morals and ethics. Since people are subjective and usually fight for self-interest ... HOW can an over-arching set of rules be established by themselves? Hitler, for example, had his own idea of morality and ethics and he managed to persuade his entire nation that his values WERE the ultimate authority. Was Hitler then "right" to use the brutal methods he did? Who's to say he wasn't ... if he managed to get control of the entire world? Majority rule would then DECIDE morality and ethics. Thus, Christian debaters argue for the NECESSITY of God as an external, impartial arbiter of morals and ethics.

When I heard Fernandes making this point -and quite eloquently too, I must say- I was reminded of my own observation -stated numerous times on these forums- that "God" is very much like a Speaker of the House in a parliamentary system. The character is TREATED as a god but in fact, his role is purely imaginary.

There's absolutely no factual evidence that God ever gave a set of rules to man. The alleged stones that he wrote on were allegedly thrown down and broken by Moses himself. Thus, we have to take Moses' "word" for it, that God then told him to write them down himself under dictation.

The ark of the covenant somehow mysteriously disappeared after a chaotic and contradictory history. The bronze serpent which Moses/Aaron erected in the Desert to save the people ... inexplicably was destroyed by King Hezekiah ... HUNDREDS of years later because -lamely- the people were "worshiping" it!~

Every single supernatural artifact claimed in the Bible has somehow "magically" disappeared from the scene ... and so we're left with ONLY the writings which CLAIMED their existence. From God himself, today, we have absolutely nothing tangible or material to prove his existence.

What Christian apologists are REALLY arguing ... is the NEED FOR ... an imaginary God. They're not actually arguing proof of God's existence but rather, proof for the need to imagine the existence of such a being.

In this respect, they may be partially correct. There DOES seem to be a need for an over-arching "authority" to determine morals and ethics within societies that favors no one and is equally applied to all people.

Yet, is this "God" the God of the Bible? Well no ... I think we all agree that we don't need to kill animals or people as sacrifices to absolve us of our own sinful actions and behavior. We don't need to stone people to death for doing something as mundane as working on a particular day of the week. We don't need to go conquering other nations and kill all of the males and non-virgin women and then give the virgins to our leaders for their own private investment. We don't need to rejoice while smashing babies' heads out on rocks. We don't need to eat human shit mixed with dough and baked into cakes ... to prove some obscure point of the great divine.

The God of the Bible simply doesn't cut the muster for the perfect model of justice and righteousness.

What then, DOES qualify to be God?

I think it's pretty self-evident that the rules and regulations we follow in ordered societies came directly out of human imagination. The founding fathers of America, for example, didn't lay down the constitution by copying lines out of the Bible. They used REASON and not blind faith or belief.

If anything, the divine God should be constructed on REASON. Whether he physically or spiritually exists, we have never been able to determine for sure ... but ... REASON is bound to bring us closer to "him" than any amount of faith or belief!

A God of reason? Is such a god necessary or needed?

In a sense, yes. Even atheists should agree that for a society to have good decent structure, implementation of law must come from reasoned planning and thinking outside of self-interest. You can call this "God" or call it something else ... but it essentially amounts to the same thing.

-Vince



Quote
Like
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

July 10th, 2010, 6:23 am #5


 

In the realm of reasoning and logic; also called common sense, an argument is a mode of reasoning wherein a series of statements mean to establish a definite proposition and logic the means to evaluate the quality of ratiocination applied therein as to determine whether the conclusion reached is valid/sound.

When we put sound premises into a valid argument, its conclusion is true - always.

What matters is whether the reasoning is sound; justifying the premises, and whether the argument form is valid; proper inference. When an argument is deductive, valid and sound, its conclusion is true - no matter how disturbing, how counter-intuitive, how emotionally unsatisfying the conclusion (is deemed).

A conclusive argument then, equals established fact; it's incontrovertible. Handy, no? 


People : intrinsically intelligent.

When people turn together, they could become a herd.
When people turn a herd, they could become sheeple.
When people turn sheeple, they could become dumb animals.
When people turn dumb animals, they become treated as such.




New!! Improved!! Now With T-Formula!!


The human brain can only comprehend 3 categories to put information in
Quote
Like
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

July 10th, 2010, 6:39 am #6

The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point. Truly refuting the central point means one has to identify it first, then commit explicitly to it. The force of a refutation therefore, depends on what you refute and how you do it. A truly effective refutation would look something like this:

"The (poster's) main point seems to be arguments are of establishing or refuting a point, as it says:

- quotation: "The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point. Truly refuting the central point means one has to identify it first, then commit explicitly to it. The force of a refutation therefore, depends on what you refute and how you do it. A truly effective refutation would look something like..."

This is wrong for the following reasons .....................
Posing various counter arguments, and questioning a logical proposition & its assumptions, can be done to simply understand & clarify the argument, its language, and/or another person's perspective. There's no requirement that the objective be to support or refute the argument. The goal of understanding and clarifying is equally valuable.

These reasons show the (poster's) main point wrong because .....................
Not necessarily wrong, simply incomplete and focused on a single objective while not considering that there are other valid objectives as well.

Therefore .....................
Discussions, arguments, and debates are a good thing because they provide more than the simple arguments presented - whether the arguments are valid or not so much.

... since you are not actually refuting.

Well done sir, if that was your directive that is. <img alt="happy.gif" src="/images/happy.gif" width="14" height="14">

 

If there is discussion, then there is (bound to be) disagreement because if there is no disagreement, then there is nothing to discuss.

If people communicate, on forums as in 3d life, then they usually do so in four modes: converse, discuss, debate, speculate-->philosophize, and each of those are distinguishable due to (their) specific characteristics

Conversation is about chit chat -- exchanging pleasantries; small talk; koffeeklatsch and so on and so forth, 'home and gardening' stuff. :^)

Discussion is about agreement/disagreement (of opinions); yes or no -- (dis)agreement (of opinions) however, doesn't render anything less or more true/false. (Dis)agreement might tell us something about the one (dis)agreeing, it tells us nothing whatsoever about the thing in (dis)agreement with. Believing 'your' opinion is right is mere confidence, believing 'your' opinion is fact is sheer arrogance. Discussion then, is a means of exchanging ideas; ideally a means to establish a consensus (not a mode to establish truth-value).

Debate is about right or wrong; true or false (in relation to alleged/proposed fact) -- we argue for or against by offering arguments (reason) of which its values are measured by a set of rules known as reasoning and logic (respectively the method and the tool to scrutinize the method) to determine whether the arguments (reasons) offered are true or false. If something is true/fact(ual), then it can be shown so (proven so) due to its axiomatic nature. If something cannot be shown true/fact(ual) (axiomatic), then we simply do not know it to be so and remains undetermined.


A problem arises if we mix up the latter two modes; when statement of opinion is deemed statement of fact and vice versa: when we say "I (dis)agree" while we mean "that is (not) true or when we say "that is (not) true" while we mean "I (dis)agree".


What matters in debate is whether the reasoning is sound; justifying the premises, and whether the argument form is valid; proper inference.

An argument that is deductive, valid and sound is an argument that ends up with a true conclusion, and there is nothing you, me, anyone, can do about it no matter how disturbing, how counter-intuitive, how emotionally unsatisfying the conclusion (is deemed).
Speculation is about conjecture; hypothesizing, philosophising at best -- anything goes (parallel/lateral thinking/reasoning) as long as proper inference is being applied because without it, speculation becomes 'fried air' since hypothesizing is meant to propose possibilities/probabilities in relation to a given (the subject matter).


.
 

And erm ... feelings do not think, thoughts do not feel, and the human brain can only comprehend three categories to put information in.



Note: If a deductive argument that is valid and sound does not end up with a true conclusion, then the problem does not lie with the argument.


http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/index.htm


When CD occurs, the mind instantly dismisses what is being proposed, applying, in a Pavlovian manner, any avoidance strategy it can think of.

Most people confronted with info contrary to their world view will not bother to check it out further, instead, they'll discount it on the first pretext that enters their mind.


People : intrinsically intelligent.

When people turn together, they could become a herd.
When people turn a herd, they could become sheeple.
When people turn sheeple, they could become dumb animals.
When people turn dumb animals, they become treated as such.


<img alt="[linked image]" src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc31 ... esmall.jpg">

New!! Improved!! Now With T-Formula!!
<img alt="[linked image]" src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc31 ... tworks.gif">

The human brain can only comprehend 3 categories to put information in
Last edited by JVH on July 11th, 2010, 9:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

JB
JB

July 10th, 2010, 6:56 am #7

 

In the realm of reasoning and logic; also called common sense, an argument is a mode of reasoning wherein a series of statements mean to establish a definite proposition and logic the means to evaluate the quality of ratiocination applied therein as to determine whether the conclusion reached is valid/sound.

When we put sound premises into a valid argument, its conclusion is true - always.

What matters is whether the reasoning is sound; justifying the premises, and whether the argument form is valid; proper inference. When an argument is deductive, valid and sound, its conclusion is true - no matter how disturbing, how counter-intuitive, how emotionally unsatisfying the conclusion (is deemed).

A conclusive argument then, equals established fact; it's incontrovertible. Handy, no? 


People : intrinsically intelligent.

When people turn together, they could become a herd.
When people turn a herd, they could become sheeple.
When people turn sheeple, they could become dumb animals.
When people turn dumb animals, they become treated as such.




New!! Improved!! Now With T-Formula!!


The human brain can only comprehend 3 categories to put information in
food fights.

What's all this serious stuff? JB
Quote
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

July 10th, 2010, 7:40 am #8

LOLOL!!!

People : intrinsically intelligent.

When people turn together, they could become a herd.
When people turn a herd, they could become sheeple.
When people turn sheeple, they could become dumb animals.
When people turn dumb animals, they become treated as such.




New!! Improved!! Now With T-Formula!!


The human brain can only comprehend 3 categories to put information in
Quote
Like
Share

Vince
Vince

July 10th, 2010, 7:58 am #9

 

In the realm of reasoning and logic; also called common sense, an argument is a mode of reasoning wherein a series of statements mean to establish a definite proposition and logic the means to evaluate the quality of ratiocination applied therein as to determine whether the conclusion reached is valid/sound.

When we put sound premises into a valid argument, its conclusion is true - always.

What matters is whether the reasoning is sound; justifying the premises, and whether the argument form is valid; proper inference. When an argument is deductive, valid and sound, its conclusion is true - no matter how disturbing, how counter-intuitive, how emotionally unsatisfying the conclusion (is deemed).

A conclusive argument then, equals established fact; it's incontrovertible. Handy, no? 


People : intrinsically intelligent.

When people turn together, they could become a herd.
When people turn a herd, they could become sheeple.
When people turn sheeple, they could become dumb animals.
When people turn dumb animals, they become treated as such.




New!! Improved!! Now With T-Formula!!


The human brain can only comprehend 3 categories to put information in
So I can understand your question?

-Vince
Quote
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

July 10th, 2010, 9:32 am #10


Then again, I have to admit, English is not my native tongue and as a result some errors might have slipped into it.

If you could point out what parts do not make sense to you, I could try to accommodate and voice them differently.


People : intrinsically intelligent.

When people turn together, they could become a herd.
When people turn a herd, they could become sheeple.
When people turn sheeple, they could become dumb animals.
When people turn dumb animals, they become treated as such.




New!! Improved!! Now With T-Formula!!


The human brain can only comprehend 3 categories to put information in
Quote
Like
Share