I’m not sure how this will work, but I would like to have one forum reserved for discussing debate itself and what I’m trying to do with this debate. ( I think that anyone can join in here… We’ll see.)
My main points here are that 1) human debates are hardly ever EFFECTIVE, 2) this is a BIG problem — we humans desperately need a way to ‘negotiate’ with other humans with whom we disagree, and 3) a way to actually ENSURE effective debate would be revolutionary.
My plan makes for a very tedious solution, but again, walking forward is a lot better than running in circles.
Mainly to test if I can post, but I have asked you before: What gives you the impresseion that debate is not effective (I leave out ‘human’, because I have never debated with anything else)?
What would, in your opinion, be the outcome of an ‘effective’ debate?
Hans
Hans,
- In the U.S., I don’t know anyone who doesn’t agree with my conclusion about “effective” debate. Could be that you guys have had a different experience, but I suspect that you’re just viewing the issue of effective debate from a different perspective… Something like that. (I use that phrase to point out that I don’t think that I’ve done a very good job of expressing an idea, but trying to do a better job would take a lot of time and effort and may not bring any improvement anyway…)
- Formal debate is just about winning — which shouldn’t be our goal in real debate over controversial issues. The trouble is, IMO, real debate over controversial issues ends up being all about winning also…
- The reason I include “human” is that I’m a big student of human nature and attribute a lot of the world’s problems to it. I think that it’s human nature that makes effective debate for us so difficult. Our “nature” evolved when “might made right,” and doesn’t fit with our current values…
- I know it’s a lot to read, but my sections 2-6 address this issue at length.
- At the very beginning of Section 5, you’ll find my definition of “effective debate.”
— Rich
Hans,
- For the moment at least, you seem to be the lone spokesperson for your side — which is how my method is supposed to work (one spokesperson per side).
- Also, my method calls for you directing the conversation in the “Against” thread, and me directing it in the “For” side.
- For the moment, I’ll try to follow your lead in the For side, but plan to take over the lead there as soon as it seems somewhat appropriate. I guess what I should do now is pick out your particular q/c in the For side that I find most important…
— Rich
Is there some reason you refuse to address the points we’ve repeatedly asked to to discuss?
“Is there some reason you refuse to address the points we’ve repeatedly asked to to discuss?”
Pakeha,
- I tried to explain the problem on the Randi forum, but never got very far… Maybe I can do better here. It’s a long story, and I’ll only try to give the first chapter here. Hopefully, that will be enough.
- First of all, “refuse” is not quite the correct word. To a large extent, I just WASN’T ABLE to address a lot of the points.
- Keep in mind that I was trying to defend my positions (all by myself) against 50 to 60 antagonists, and while I can’t remember how many posts there had been (in 35 pages over a month and a half) before enough were deleted by the moderators in order to end up (in 33 pages) with 1,300 posts and 29,000 views.
- Since moderation began, I made at least 2 more posts, but none were published.
- My first post was on March 6
At 10:32 AM (#17), I ask a question.
At 11:21 (#18), X ASKS ME A QUESTION.
at 11:22 (#19), RESUME ASKS ME A QUESTION.
at 11:46 (#20), AZZTHOM MAKES SEVERAL CLAIMS REQUIRING RESPONSES.
at 11:52 (#21), I ask for sources from Azz.
at 12:04 (#22), Azz gives source.
at 12:27, (#23), I respond to three of his claims.
at 12:41 (#24), YY2 ASKS ME FOR A CITATION.
at 12:55 (#25), Azz answers. He gives 4 sources…
- Note that this all happened in two and a half hours — and remember that I pretty much reserve the afternoons for my “Honey Do” list.
- On March 8
at 6:32 AM (#57), I point out that, overall, three basic objections to Shroud authenticity have been raised over the past day, and ask for suggestions as to which to address first.
at 7:05 (#58), CRAIG MAKES ONE REQUEST (FOR REASONS AS TO WHY I BELIEVE IN AUTHENTICITY), ONE CLAIM AND ONE QUESTION.
at 8:25 (#65), I give my reasons. I don’t respond to the claim or question.
at 8:38 (#66), PALADIN GIVES ME AN ARTICLE APPARENTLY DISCREDITING SOMETHING I JUST SAID.
at 9:03 (#68), MYRIAD ASKS ME SIX QUESTIONS.
at 9:08 (#69), HANS MUSTERMAN GIVES ME ABOUT 16 QUESTION/COMMENTS TO WHICH TO RESPOND.
- Also about two and a half hours.
- And, so it began…
- So, the first part of my long story is that I simply wasn’t able to keep up – and the problem quickly metastasized. There IS more to my story (more excuses) – but hopefully, you won’t need to hear the rest.
— Rich
Jabba, I wasn’t talking about the JREF thread, but the discussion here.
Even this ‘general admin’ is distracting you from the real discussion.
The TS, remember?
Jabba, effective debate is very easy, IF you have an argument for your side.
You problem is that you don’t. The C14 result is conclusive, widely accepted by both sides, and, so far, not refuted effectively.
As long as you cannot effectively refute that result, the axiomatic position is that the shroud of Turin is made in the 14th century, which implies it is a fake.
It is not enough that there are things you feel should have been different, especially since you are not a specialist in the field.
All your talk about real blood etc. is is just handwaving and an attempt to smokescreen the fact that you cannot touch the C14 result.
And about your ‘model of debate’: I will debate in the way I please, thank you very much, and if you don’t accept that, just say so, and I’m out of here. You see, I really don’t care much whether you think the shroud is authentic or not.
Hans
Hans: “Jabba, effective debate is very easy…”
Hans,
- Can you give me a couple of examples of effective debate? Have you had some effective debates on the Randi forum?
There we go again, Jabba.
Stick to the real discussion, please.
About the TS.
Hans,
1) Just counting the q/c’s in your MOST RECENT posts in Gen Admin, For Authenticity and Against Authenticity, there are 17 q/c’s to which I’d like to respond.
2) In addition, I’d like to respond CAREFULLY (I need to think carefully about what you’re saying, carefully TRY to look past my own biases to my own doubts (which isn’t easy for ANYBODY) — and then, carefully express what I find) to EACH of those 17 q/c’s.
3) I’m sure you don’t believe #2, but if you carefully read my Sections 2-6, you’ll see that
a) I’ve done a lot of thinking about
i) the apparent non-existence of actually EFFECTIVE debate,
ii) the IMPORTANCE of effective debate, and
iii) HOW TO HAVE effective debate.
b) I emphasize the importance of trying to see the other side. And,
c) Here, I’m trying to further develop, and “SELL” (no money involved) my model for effective debate. (In other words, I have real motivation for turning over the rocks covering my own doubts. Then, I acknowledge that even with the motivation, doing so isn’t easy.)
4) And (perhaps) finally, I can’t make up my mind as to how to now respond to your q/c’s:
a) Stick to one q/c at a time.
b) Respond to all the easy ones first.
c) List all 17 of your q/c’s, and respond fully and carefully to the first.
5) Unfortunately, I need to sleep on it.
— Rich
Jabba, this is a tempest in a teapot.
We’re here to discuss the TS, remember?
Well, the main reason, when a debate is ineffective, is that a participant fails or refuses to answer central questions. For example, I have asked you:
What do you consider the be the outcome of an effective debate?
Maybe a multichoice option will help you:
The outcome of an effective debate is:
a) All participants agree on one viewpoint.
b) All participants agree with your viewpoint.
c) Each participant has an opportunity to communicate and defend his/her viewpoint.
d) Each participant has a good opportunity to understand and evaluate both (or all) viewpoints.
d) The best man wins.
And yes, I have seen several debates at the JREF that were effective on my opinion.
Hans
Hans: “Well, the main reason, when a debate is ineffective, is that a participant fails or refuses to answer central questions.
“For example, I have asked you:
“What do you consider the be the outcome of an effective debate?…”
Me:
Hans,
- But, I did answer you on May 3 (above) at 09:00:
” … At the very beginning of Section 5, you’ll find my definition of “effective debate.”
— Rich
Mmmm, OK, you did:
[quote]5.2. Both sides must be able to effectively present their significant evidence and arguments.
5.2.1. Or, in other words (as strange as this might sound), the two sides need to agree upon precisely what it is that they disagree about (think about it)…
5.2.2. To have effective debate, the two sides do not need to finally agree with each other regarding the actual issue at hand.
[/quote]
That is something around C) and D) above. Fait enough, and I agree.
But then what exactly is your problem with the current debate, here and the JREF?
Have you not had ample opportunity to present your arguments?
Have we not had ample opportunity to present our arguments?
Are there any of our arguments that you don’t understand, and are unable to get cearer?
Have we not had ample opportunity to ask you to elaborate on your arguments?
What exactly is the problem?
Hans
Hans,
- I hate to say it, but seems like we might be getting somewhere…
- My claim is that I have not had ample opportunity to present my arguments.
- More specifically, I just haven’t had time to even nearly “keep up” — especially, over at JREF.
- I have several excuses, but for now I’ll give what must be the biggest — it goes something like this: For every “answer” I give, I tend to get several new questions and/or comments to answer. Before too long, things just get out of hand and everyone starts “fussing” at me… That’s how I see it.
- I guess that my second biggest excuse is that I’m naturally slow. I have several “sub-excuses” for being so slow, but I’ll keep them to myself unless you want to hear them also.
- If this isn’t enough to satisfactorily explain my perception that I have not had ample opportunity to present my arguments, let me know, and I’ll provide some more.
— Rich
Hans,
- I think I’ve been going about this all wrong…
- I think that you guys were right in regard to providing sources and evidence right away…
- Right now, I need to get to bed. I’ll try to explain my epiphany tomorrow…
— Rich
I’m glad you feel that way about sources and evidence, Jabba and I’m looking forward to seeing what you post up.
No obituaries, please!
[quote]- My claim is that I have not had ample opportunity to present my arguments.
- More specifically, I just haven’t had time to even nearly “keep up” — especially, over at JREF.
[/quote]
Well, I know the JREF forum can be a bit overwhelming. Take it as a sign you are an interesting adversary.
However, nobody (mostly, that is) will blame you if you concentrate on a single, or a few issues, especially if you clearly state your intention to do so. That is [i]provided[/i] you choose central issues. OTOH if, after the other side has presented the C14 reports, you insist on discussing bloodstains, [i]then[/i] watch the flak coming up.
- But that will be the same, here.
Hans
Pakeha and Hans,
- Just don’t expect me to be very fast.
— Rich
Pingback: fgdve List
fgdve,
- I’ve been too busy elsewhere to keep up with my blog. Hopefully, that will change in the near future.
- Thanks.
— Jabba