Regulations
Pages
- 1
- 2
| Author | Topic: Regulations |
|---|---|
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Sunday, May 20 2007 01:52
Profile
Over in the Geneforge 4 forum, a very long debate on intelligent design versus neo-Darwinian evolution seems finally to have petered out. It stayed in G4 rather than being moved here because it began as a debate on Shaper policy (hence its title of "Regulation"), and because the mods thought that moving it here would probably kill it. Safely isolated in G4, it was remarkable for how long the thread sustained civility. It succumbed to UBB around the 20 page mark, but continued for several pages more in successor threads. Of course it wasn't much better than most such debates in changing anyone's opinions. After 18 pages that didn't seem to be really getting anywhere, I started trying to regulate the discussion in ways I thought might make it more productive, and everyone else pretty much played along. I myself, at least, thought that the results were somewhat helpful, though at the level of 'some progress over 3 pages' rather than breakthroughs in every post. We had successfully focused down onto one particular issue, and it was clear to most of us that one side's argument was collapsing under close examination. Unfortunately we didn't continue for very many more pages before the debate's lone active proponent of ID stopped posting. I don't know whether he despaired of his collapsing argument, or became disgusted by the obtuseness with which the rest of us kept failing to see its validity, or just got worn out after fighting six-on-one for nearly 30 pages. This particular debate was not an ideal test of strategies for improving debates, because it was one-against-many, and because we didn't start trying to do anything differently until we were all tired out by 18 pages of wrangling. But for me, at least, it was refreshing just to be doing something a bit different, instead of watching the long posts sail past each other firing immense point-by-point broadsides, all missing, time after time after time. I learned one thing about science from this debate: preaching to the choir is really pernicious, and this holds for popular orthodox science as well as for pseudoscience. Pseudoscience could not itself stand up for a moment to the ingenuity and rigor with which it attacks orthodox science; it relies totally on never having to defend itself from a hostile crowd. But although actual science is much more ingenious and rigorous even than its pseudoscientific attackers, popular expositions of orthodox science are frequently not. Most popular expositions concentrate on merely conveying the conclusions of science, and give pitifully short shrift to explaining why we think those conclusions are true. And this constant preaching to the choir not only tempts too many smart people into wasting their time with pseudoscience. It also gives lay scientific believers a fundamentally distorted view of what the science they duly accept is really about. About debates I think what I learned tended to confirm my prior theories, though as I mentioned the data is ambiguous. It is very much harder to manage a fruitful discussion than most people realize. We rarely ourselves understand anything we believe as well as we think we do. We often make many more leaps of faith in our own thinking than we want to acknowledge. So most of our own arguments are actually bad, and we accept them because we do not probe them vigorously, preaching to the choir again. Naturally our bad arguments are ineffective in convincing others. But making a really good argument is really hard, even when you are right. It is possible for humans to grapple with truth, just as we can run ultramarathons or fly space shuttles: but it's a stretch far beyond our instinctive range. Usually we settle for our own bad arguments, because they are so much easier to make. To properly thresh out even one significant point could easily take a dozen pages of thoughtful posting, clarifying what is meant and what is not meant, which propositions are assumed as premises and which are inferred, which steps are considered trivial and which are emphasized as profound. So there's no hope of getting anywhere if one tries to address too many points. It's a pleasant illusion to think that a long post full of points is so many good rocks flung at the enemy, but usually they are dragon's teeth (or for the classically challenged, cans of worms), because (once again) most of our arguments are bad. So to me the one essential, for a debate to stand a chance of actually going anywhere, is tight focus onto at most a couple of major issues. Something else that might be worth trying would be to run a sidebar thread for each side to simply explain what it is trying to say, and in which the other side would just try to understand the other's argument, without attempting to oppose it. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 8406
|
written Sunday, May 20 2007 08:06
Profile
cliffnotes. Posts: 47 | Registered: Thursday, March 29 2007 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Sunday, May 20 2007 10:11
Profile
Dude, that was the short version. The original was 30 pages. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Sunday, May 20 2007 10:34
Profile
quote:But this really is a perfect example of the debate derailment technique which you are arguing against. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Sunday, May 20 2007 12:55
Profile
Homepage
Trinity, I agree completely. I've never really put it into words, but I've seen the fruitlessness of such debates for a long time and often wished that we could find a way to rise above it to something actually worthwhile and productive. If you can muster the time and interest after the whole Stillness saga, I'd be really interested to "debate" (I don't like the agressive connotations of the word - "discuss" might be better) ID with you one-on-one. -------------------- SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 5360
|
written Sunday, May 20 2007 13:45
Profile
An excellent find, SoT. While Nalyd didn't participate in that thread, he did follow it rather avidly. One of the problems with ID debates is that spiderweb is, primarily, a more scientific community. -------------------- May the fires of Undeath burn in your soul, and consume it. Posts: 1636 | Registered: Wednesday, January 5 2005 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 7298
|
written Sunday, May 20 2007 19:52
Profile
I find that most people are gonna beleive what they want to beleive. It goes both ways. Evolutionist discount ID just as bad and in the same manner Creationist discount evolution. -------------------- A rock has weight whether you admit it or not Posts: 479 | Registered: Wednesday, July 12 2006 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Sunday, May 20 2007 22:00
Profile
Homepage
It's hard to make a good argument, but what continually surprises me is how hard it is to get others to recognize a good argument. What interests me, I suppose, is why some people, even when they are certainly right and are presenting accurate arguments, can still be unconvincing to many. I forget, sometimes, that most people need some formal training even to be able to recognize a good argument, much less make one. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Sunday, May 20 2007 22:48
Profile
Homepage
... in other words, any fool can win a debate, but it takes some real skill to lose one. In a manner of speaking, I mean. -------------------- Encyclopaedia Ermariana • Forum Archives • Forum Statistics • RSS [Topic / Forum] My Blog • Polaris • I eat novels for breakfast. Polaris is dead, long live Polaris. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Monday, May 21 2007 12:09
Profile
Homepage
Wonderful read, SoT... I think I agree. -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Monday, May 21 2007 22:25
Profile
quote:Nicely put! Kelandon's right, and I think that's why. But really the two things go together: if you can quickly recognize a good argument, you can recognize a bad one too. And people who can't tell how bad their own arguments are probably have no idea what they're missing. But I don't think that it's really a matter of people not being sophisticated enough. In a way, it's being too sophisticated. Some people seem to me to think that making a good argument on a big topic somehow has different rules from ordinary common sense. I sometimes suspect that people have read specialized discussions that they didn't understand, and gotten the idea that meaningless mumbo-jumbo was the thing to do. Stating things baldly in plain terms, or with down-to-earth analogies, makes it a lot harder to kid yourself that what you've said makes sense. Ash: I'd be interested in a discussion with you sometime, but right now I'm very busy, and also a bit tired of evolution and design. Next time the topic comes up, which it eventually will, we can try something. I'm not sure one-on-one would really be best, though, simply because I have very little training in biology. But how to make a larger discussion work efficiently is another interesting problem. [ Monday, May 21, 2007 22:28: Message edited by: Student of Trinity ] -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Tuesday, May 22 2007 04:42
Profile
Homepage
The problem is not being rigorous enough with what sophistication you have. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Canned
Member # 7704
|
written Tuesday, May 22 2007 08:35
Profile
I think it's all about control over the things that can't be controlled. There is a thing about debate as long as you have good argument you don't need to be right. [ Tuesday, May 22, 2007 08:37: Message edited by: upon mars ] -------------------- You can jump off a bridge, fire a gun in your mouth, drink poison,or going in to the tiger's pit but you will still end up dead it's a mater of time and how . Posts: 312 | Registered: Sunday, November 26 2006 08:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Tuesday, May 22 2007 14:56
Profile
Homepage
quote:I have very little training in biology either. And for that reason I tend not to argue things involving that too much (if I argue at all), because I recognise it ain't a simple subject and there's a lot I don't understand. I tend to be more interested in the more layman-level philosophical discussions of ID. I say one-on-one because I don't want to end up arguing against ten different people. But yes, I'm busy too, so maybe some other time. -------------------- SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Tuesday, May 22 2007 15:30
Profile
Homepage
ID tends to require more biology than the average non-scientist can manage. As the late original Regulation thread brought up over and over, there's a lot of important stuff in detailed protein structure and function. —Alorael, who thinks it's ultimately a problem of faith over reason. No argument will convince someone who's fundamentally convinced of something regardless of evidence. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Tuesday, May 22 2007 15:45
Profile
Homepage
quote:I actually don't worry too much about ID vs. Evolution. I'm interested in its relevance to the origin of life. -------------------- SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Tuesday, May 22 2007 16:24
Profile
Homepage
The scientific origin of life still requires a great deal of highly specialized experimental biology, but in the end I think we may only come up with more or less plausible knowledge. Without any record at all it's too hard to know. —Alorael, who still thinks it's a matter of faith. He'd also like to think life started on Mars. As long as it's unprovable, the hypothesis might as well be very sci-fi. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Tuesday, May 22 2007 17:25
Profile
I think it's more a matter of the reason side calling the religious side stupid, consequently causing the religious side to be unwilling to listen to "reason." Rinse, repeat, and it's a self-sustaining circle, at least normally here in General. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Tuesday, May 22 2007 18:52
Profile
Homepage
One of the things that I find particularly neat about the previous pope, JP2, is that he was really big on trying to reconcile faith and reason. He wrote a bunch of encyclicals about it in his later years. Pretty unusual for a major religious figure. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Tuesday, May 22 2007 23:08
Profile
I'm not sure it actually is so unusual. It's just the anti-intellectual strand in American culture that makes it seem as though religion and reason are oil and water. Guys like Oral Roberts and Jerry Falwell are not really representative of religion in general, or even of evangelical protestant Christianity in general. The older Christian denominations, classical Islam, and I think also Buddhism have always been big on reason. There are always a certain number of premises that are simply assumed, but that's true for every viewpoint, religious or not. On really basic questions, reason offers limited help, because it gets hard to find any premises that don't beg the questions. I think that there is some property of 'reasonableness', though, other than strict logical inference, to which even basic discussions can aspire. Most religions seem to me to manage this; the ones that don't are a sometimes shrill minority. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Wednesday, May 23 2007 08:50
Profile
Homepage
Yeah, it's definitely true that those vocal few don't accurately represent the views of most Christians. It's just that to the uninformed viewer, the degree to which they are vocal about their beliefs almost lends credibility to the idea that they have a lot of support. The louder they shout and the more money they have at their disposal, the easier it is to believe that they have a stronger backing than originally thought. That kinda scares me. quote:Wow. Okay. Did his parents hate him? And there's a university named after him, too... -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
Skip to My Lou
Member # 40
|
written Wednesday, May 23 2007 09:24
Profile
Homepage
His name makes me think "Oral Robbers", which is somehow disturbing, yet entertaining. -------------------- Take the Personality Test! Deep down, you wish you were a stick figure. Posts: 1629 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Wednesday, May 23 2007 11:36
Profile
In the weird old comic strip Bloom County, the degenerate cat Bill went through a phase as a televangelist, Morally Oral Bill. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Wednesday, May 23 2007 19:04
Profile
Homepage
If you want to make televangelist jokes, there's a plethora about Tedd Haggard liking Oral... -------------------- SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Friday, May 25 2007 05:37
Profile
Homepage
I dunno, I can think of a number of long debates from my tenure here in which one (or more) participants stubbornly asserted things without evidence, and when pressed supplied a series of giant logical leaps which they continued to support as absolute truth. In fact I think that's exactly why the long debates went on for so long. If there was no one to stubbornly disagree, the extent of the discussion would be somebody linking to wikipedia and somebody else saying "I didn't know that"; or maybe somebody else saying "I think there's another possibility." -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
Pages
- 1
- 2