Argument is war; thus forum becomes battle ground.

[Turtle]

Argument is war; thus forum becomes battle ground.

 

It seems to me that the forum members who participate in a thread approach the experience invigorated with much the same attitude as does a boxer entering the ring or a soldier going into battle.

 

Metaphor entailments (to transmit or to accompany) we live by:

He attacked my argument.

I have never beaten this guy in an argument.

If you do not agree with my statement then take your best shot.

I shot down each of his arguments.

 

We approach a forum response much like we approach a physical contest. ...

 

Hi Coberst. :phones: I referenced the thread earlier I found germane, and after reading the last few posts I can put that thread in context with theirs' and your original post. If you replace your 'soldier going into battle' or 'boxer' metaphors with that of the general, then it is possible to go about constructing posts following principles such as those laid out by Sun Tzu in his work Art of War.

 

Under these principles, avoiding bloodshed and outmaneuvering an opponent is the ultimate goal. Moreover, when battle is called for, the means and methods have outlines as well. Metaphors all for, by no great stretch, any discussion or communication where the concept of 'adversarial' is applicable. In my humble opinion, of course. :eek2:

[coberst]

Pyrotex

 

Such is the delimma if I title the post with the main idea no one will read it and if I title it with something they will read they never get beyond the title.

 

I think that we might say that ‘X is A’ is a useful means for comprehending ‘linguistic metaphor’ and also comprehending a new and revolutionary cognitive theory, ‘conceptual metaphor’.

 

Linguistically I might say ‘X is A’ by which I mean X, the unknown, is like ‘A’ the known. The phrase ‘understand is grasp’ allows me to help someone comprehend the concept ‘understand’ by comparing it to the concept ‘grasp’. ‘It just flew over my head, I was unable to grasp it’ is an expression we all readily comprehend and it also is an example of using a metaphor to express our meaning.

 

But now comes the revolutionary ‘conceptual metaphor’, which I suspect will become a paradigm of cognitive science. ‘Conceptual metaphor’ is ‘cognitive DNA’. The idea ‘conceptual metaphor’ can be comprehended somewhat by considering it to be DNA like.

 

An infant might have the experience of warmth when first held by her mother. A concept, which is the neurological structure of this experience, is composed into a ‘mental space’. The experience, now becoming a concept, is structured by the brain so that the brain can draw appropriate inferences about this experience.

 

Let me call this concept, this experience, this neurological network, ‘B’. Cognitive science, with the aid of technology, has evidence to support the hypothesis that there are many circumstances wherein the brain automatically and without our consciousness of the happening, will ‘map’ parts of ‘B’ onto a new mental space and that structure will become part of the ‘DNA like structure’ of a new experience.

 

The experience of warmth by the infant can become part of the ‘cognitive DNA’ of the new and subjective concept ‘affection’. This is why we can easily comprehend that ‘affection is warmth’.

 

Cognitive science, which consists of scientist from the fields of neurology, philosophy, linguistics, and probably others, has been utilizing new technology to develop this possible new paradigm for cognitive science over the last three decades. The book “Philosophy in The Flesh” by Lakoff and Johnson is my source for this knowledge.

 

If your curiosity is aroused you might do a Google of “conceptual metaphor” (use the quotes).

[coberst]

I think that part of the problem is that too many of us have only an accept button and a reject button.

 

Accept or reject are not the only options one has. The most important and generally overlooked, especially by the young, is the option to ‘hold’.

 

It appears to me that many young people consider that ‘to be negative is to be cool’. This leads them into responding that ‘X’ is false when responding to an OP that states that ‘X’ is true.

 

When a person takes a public position affirming or denying the truth of ‘Y’ they are often locking themselves into a difficult position. If their original position was based on opinion rather than judgment their ego will not easily allow them to change position once they have studied and analyzed ‘Y’.

 

The moral of this story is that holding a default position of ‘reject or accept’, when we are ignorant, is not smart because our ego will fight any attempt to modify the opinion with a later judgment. Silence, or questions directed at comprehending the matter under consideration, is the smart decision for everyone’s default position.

 

Our options are reject, accept, and hold. I think that ‘hold’ is the most important and should be the most often used because everyone is ignorant of almost everything.

[Turtle]

...Our options are reject, accept, and hold. I think that ‘hold’ is the most important and should be the most often used because everyone is ignorant of almost everything.

 

Or by another's view, we may consider 5 options. :)

 

Warfare is a great matter to a nation;

it is the ground of death and of life;

 

it is the way of survival and of destruction, and must be examined.

 

Therefore, go through it by means of five factors;

 

compare them by means of calculation, and determine their statuses:

 

One, Way, two, Heaven, three, Ground, four, General, five, Law.

 

complete reference in context: >> Chapter 1 Sun Tzu The Art of War and Strategy Site.

[Pyrotex]

Pyrotex,

Such is the delimma if I title the post with the main idea no one will read it and if I title it with something they will read they never get beyond the title.

Coberst,

I disagree. Have you tried giving 'straight' titles to your threads? Of course, even then, word choice is important. If you named this thread "Metaphors" it might not attract attention. But if you called it "Battle as metaphor for Argument", that would surely attract attention, and people would come knowing what it was about.

I think that we might say that ‘X is A’ is a useful means for comprehending ‘linguistic metaphor’ and also comprehending a new and revolutionary cognitive theory, ‘conceptual metaphor’.

Well, it seems to me that this is all plain enough. I can use metaphor to explain simple actions, like "I grasp the problem". And I can use metaphor to explain an abstract concept, like "consider a stretched rubber sheet with a bowling ball in the middle as representing a gravitational field".

... ‘Conceptual metaphor’ is ‘cognitive DNA’. The idea ‘conceptual metaphor’ can be comprehended somewhat by considering it to be DNA like....

This I didn't understand. I cannot see how a metaphor can be like DNA. Would you care to explain?

[coberst]

Coberst,

I disagree. Have you tried giving 'straight' titles to your threads?

 

I cannot see how a metaphor can be like DNA. Would you care to explain?

 

Yes, I have often given straight titles to my threads, you can find them by the fact that they are seldom read. I have discovered which words the viewers and the responders will not touch. Anything that sounds too intellectual is a turn off. Our educational system has accomplished the task of making us all cautious of anything that is intellectual without a suitable payoff in consumer goods.

 

‘Conceptual metaphor’ is the name cognitive science has assigned to the human phenomenon whereby the conceptual structure of one experience is unconsciously mapped into the conceptual structure of another experience.

 

We have literal experiences like eating an apple and subjective experiences like affection for another. Literal experiences ground subjective experiences by association, i.e. associating the subjective experience to the literal experience by a process called conceptual metaphor. Conceptual metaphor is the name given to this means of ‘copying’ the contents of one mental space into another mental space.

 

An infant has the experience of warmth and security when first held by its mother. In a following experience this feeling is duplicated thereby enhancing its strength and perhaps a second experience of receiving food is added to this conceptual structure. Thus the infant may have these two conceptual structures plus additional such experiences that are all together in a common mental space.

 

In a mental space we might have a complex conceptual structure that results from one or more experiences. At some other time in life the infant develops a new conceptual structure which is subjective and not literal. The infant has a completely subjective concept we can call affection. For some reason, which I cannot explain because I have not studied this matter in that depth, the brain will map some or all of the conceptual structure of the warmth and security experience into the mental space with the subjective concept we call affection.

 

Cognitive science calls this phenomenon ‘conflation’. Conflation is when one conceptual structure is automatically mapped from one location into another and forms part of this second conceptual structure. Because of this phenomenon the subjective concept we call affection has this feeling of warmth and security. Thus ‘affection is warmth’ is a common metaphor that everyone recognizes because we all have this feeling as a result of this conceptual metaphor.

 

The conceptual metaphor is the mapping of a primary metaphor into another structure. It acts like the action of a verbal metaphor and this is why it is called a conceptual metaphor.

 

If I have not been clear it may be because it took me months to develop a comprehension of this idea because it is so alien to anything that I have thought about before.

[Pyrotex]

...The conceptual metaphor is the mapping of a primary metaphor into another structure. It acts like the action of a verbal metaphor and this is why it is called a conceptual metaphor.

 

If I have not been clear it may be because it took me months to develop a comprehension of this idea because it is so alien to anything that I have thought about before.

Excellent post. Very clear and understandable. I am enlightened.

 

Actually, that was a conceptual metaphor. What I experienced was the learning of a new and useful paradigm of thought. This I associated with the literal experience of being bathed in light, which of course, enabled my ability to see more clearly. Likewise, the experience of learning has enabled my ability to understand more clearly.

 

:thumbs_up

[Kriminal99]

I don't think it has to be like that, but I also think it takes a certain level of enlightenment or character to remain civil (on both sides, weak link breaks the civility) that most people and even forum moderators may not have.

 

You have people who look at argument as a way to greater truth by using all parties as a resource, and who follow natural rules that create this type of enviornment.

 

Then you have people who hate being wrong, just want to "win" the argument , want to look superficially intelligent or superior, and for whom typical forum rules are just another weapon to use against people

 

When argument becomes hostile, it is pointless to try and "keep it civil" by making rules that attempt to treat the symptoms of the situation. Someone can always use dishonest means to assault your character and deceive "the audience" that do not technically break the rules.

 

Rules can be used to keep a discussion fair and civil, but it would have to do so by preventing any form of aggression not just types that are superficially obvious. The goal of these rules would basically be to force people of the second type to mature into people of the first type or leave the forum.

 

The person making the rules would have to be well versed in fallacy and skilled at ferreting out deception. He would act more as a referee in hopes that the end result is a spirit of sportsmanship and that people will refrain from using sarcasm, unconnected metaphors and anything someone might use to avoid admitting when they might be wrong about something.

 

A good example of a fallacious rule I often see on forums is that you can attack someone's argument but not the person arguing.

 

Of course discussion entails arguing for the opposite of someone else's claim, but this implies something more like "Anyone who believes X is stupid!" Such an argument is fallacious (if it were true you would just say why instead) and just as much an attack on the character of the arguer as anything else. You often have people who become forum regulars who insult people using this and then the moderators wonder why people break the rule in response-- everyone knows it's the same damn thing!

 

An example of something a normal moderator can't catch but a sort of logic referee can would be reposting the same argument after it has been responded to. In this case, you might have a person that has posted the same thing twice but the first time it was civil and the second time it was not. Ignoring someone's counter argument and reposting your own claim implies that readers should listen to you and reject your opponent's claims out right, which is fallacious and hostile.

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

By arguing I am assuming that we are discussing issues that actually can be argued, such as philosophical and metaphysical topics. In that case, the reasons for arguing may not be as easily labeled as prideful. Some people argue to feel superior, some argue to make the other person think, and soem argue because they find virtue in what they are trying to uphold.

 

The concepts we uphold are literally the way in which we create our world. Its easy to argue against these structures because we all have different ones, all that is needed is the ability to articulate the argument in a way that the person being told can understand. But what is the point?

[Pyrotex]

...When argument becomes hostile, it is pointless to try and "keep it civil" by making rules that attempt to treat the symptoms of the situation. Someone can always use dishonest means to assault your character and deceive "the audience" that do not technically break the rules.....

:hihi: :lol: ;)

 

Welcome back, Krim.

 

I find the above paragraph hard to understand. What it "seems to me" to say is: that once hostility has been received, it is pointless to refrain from giving hostility.

 

Well, sometimes. At other times, it may be useful to maintain a dignified silence. This prevents the water from getting so muddy (metaphor!) and may enable communication to continue sooner rather then later.

 

And--how is an assault on a person's character "dishonest"? It would seem to me that an assault might be obviously "hostile" or "malicious" or "injurious". But "dishonest" would necessarily involve lies. And lies (of that sort) would probably break our local rules.

 

Unless there's something here I don't see. Yet. Say some more on this, please, if you wish.

[Kriminal99]

:hihi: :lol: ;)

 

Welcome back, Krim.

 

I find the above paragraph hard to understand. What it "seems to me" to say is: that once hostility has been received, it is pointless to refrain from giving hostility.

 

Well, sometimes. At other times, it may be useful to maintain a dignified silence. This prevents the water from getting so muddy (metaphor!) and may enable communication to continue sooner rather then later.

 

And--how is an assault on a person's character "dishonest"? It would seem to me that an assault might be obviously "hostile" or "malicious" or "injurious". But "dishonest" would necessarily involve lies. And lies (of that sort) would probably break our local rules.

 

Unless there's something here I don't see. Yet. Say some more on this, please, if you wish.

 

I think that Fallacies are dishonest because you are attempting to cause others to think you know something that you do not. You are attempting to force them to believe something that is not true etc.

 

Attacks on someone's character usually require straw man fallacy, making stuff up about the person etc. Basically when you attempt to assault someone's character or even their argument, you are basically claiming yourself to be god with an unlimited knowledge of why someone did something , what drives their actions, whether or not their arguments are correct (in fact that you know so well you don't even have to look!... yeah right)

 

That is obviously a lie. Not only is it true that a person attacking someone else really has no clue what they are talking about, I have never seen a case where a person who had their character assaulted in such a manner did not have an explanation of the situation that defeated any sort of naive "That person is just bad and I r just so cool" type of statements made about them by someone trying to attack their character.

 

Honest argument requires open-mindedness and willingness to consider that you could be wrong about something. It requires you to make arguments that other people can understand and that address counter points instead of just demanding that everyone believe you just because of who you are.

 

I think the number one thing that starts aggression in arguments is when inexperienced arguers restate something that has already been identified as a point of disagreement without making additional arguments for it. This is like demanding that everyone believe you just because you want them to.

[Pyrotex]

Okay. Good enough.

 

As I observe folks, I notice two types of fallacifiers. (is that a word?) The more common kind are those folks who really don't have a clue that they are using or depending upon fallacy. They want so badly to show that X leads to Y, or X causes Y, that any logical-sounding argument is good enough for them.

 

And then there are the mallicious fallacifiers who know what they're doing and just want to see if it works. They are often trolls.

[LaurieAG]

As I observe folks, I notice two types of fallacifiers. (is that a word?)

 

Hi Pyro,

 

The word is Paralogism/Paralogic but there isn't any distinction between conscious or subconscious Paralogism.

 

pa·ral·o·gism /pəˈræləˌdʒɪzəm/

–noun Logic.

1. argument violating principles of valid reasoning.

2. a conclusion reached through such argument.

 

pa·ral·o·gism (pə-rāl'ə-jĭz'əm)

n. A fallacious or illogical argument or conclusion.

[InfiniteNow]

So, actually, LaurieAG, you're saying it would be a "paralogist?"

[LaurieAG]

So, actually, LaurieAG, you're saying it would be a "paralogist?"

 

Hi InfiniteNow,

 

Paralogist would be correct for someone who uses fallacious argument unwittingly.

 

I was actually discussing with Coberst on another thread about the subconscious and the conscious and came to one conclusion just recently. I said that there was a difference between subconscious honesty and subconscious dishonesty but realise now that the dishonest subconscious would have to be a learned result becaused it would be very difficult otherwise.

[Pyrotex]

I like the word "paralogist" -- but it certainly smacks of someone who uses fallacy on purpose, who might even research and practice the use of subtle fallacious logic just so he can "win" arguments, or give the appearance of winning. A paralogist is deceitful.

 

But the poor uneducated sap who has no clue that his fancy "strawman" technique is merely a crude fallacy, deserves another name. Any suggestions?

 

How about "orthologist"? (other logic)

 

Or "subologist"? (beneath logic)

[Kriminal99]

Okay. Good enough.

 

As I observe folks, I notice two types of fallacifiers. (is that a word?) The more common kind are those folks who really don't have a clue that they are using or depending upon fallacy. They want so badly to show that X leads to Y, or X causes Y, that any logical-sounding argument is good enough for them.

 

And then there are the mallicious fallacifiers who know what they're doing and just want to see if it works. They are often trolls.

 

But they think they do know...

 

If all these people did was not know they were using a fallacy (alluding to someone standing there saying "oh sorry, I didn't know), there wouldn't be a problem. There would be no conflict between average people and hyper-rationals...

 

The problem is that people who aren't familiar with fallacies think they do know things that they in fact do not - or perhaps place higher importance on their friends and enviornment's agreement with the idea than it's actual truth.

 

They feel they know these things so strongly that they feel empowered to act aggressively against people who disagree.

 

I'm not listening!!!

 

This includes refusing to listen to any counterarguments that would show them why their reasoning is fallacious. So not only do they act aggressively against people who disagree, they refuse to consider anything that would change their mind.

 

Are they choosing willful ignorance? Determinist says no

 

According to your point of view of free will in conjunction with understanding of common fallacy Pyrotex, these people should be punished for their willful ignorance. After all they are deciding to be aggressive against people who disagree with them and refuse to consider the other point of view.

 

It is easy for me to become excessively angry at such people and want to say things like "At what point did you decide you knew something ignorant little sheep??!?!", etc...

 

But as a determinist, I accept that these people simply have not had the experiences that I have had that cause a shift in thinking to having more respect for actual truth then what most people around you believe. Human beings are not naturally intelligent or rational, and have goals that relate to other people rather than understanding their enviornment. In these cushy times it is only some people that will learn so certainly that respect for truth is required to avoid problems caused by the real world that would prevent us from reaching even those goals related to other people.

 

I accept that they simply do not know even while I am in a constant struggle against their aggressive behavior. My goal is less to punish people who act this way, then to find a way to force them to see why they don't know what they think they know.

 

Smacking some sense into people - a means to an end

 

But as is often the case the difference is not huge, since I may have to smack the crap out of someone (Physically or metaphorically) to take away their feeling of empowerment, recognize mine, or at least tip the balance enough that they will look for some explanation of why I believe what I believe so strongly and finally look at what I have been trying to tell them.

 

They may give in in a fake manner, they may run away from the discussion, or if they are strong they will simply think "ok, we aren't getting too far smacking each other around... lets try listening to what makes him feel like hes so right about it". I don't back down or run away so that isn't a potential outcome although in some cases it may be that the hyper-rational person backs down.

 

A real problem occurs when the other person has a false situational increase in power. Example- a bandwagon fallacist glad-handles his way up the corporate latter to a position of relative power and gets into a conflict with a younger and newer hyper-rational employee. The older person does not see or care about the danger to the company of outright refusing to consider the young employee's claims. He probably reasons something like "Ok, now I did my time it is my turn to be the one who doesn't back down or run away"... naively believe that this is where the strength to fight for your ideas really comes from.

 

So what do you do when someone is ignorant, won't listen to you, and is capable of causing a significant amount of damage to you or to others based on his ignorance? How do you solve this problem? There is no easy answer.

 

The only answer is to defeat or destroy him some other way. The first choice is of course to do it legally - advocate legislation against false advertising or whatever the person has done wrong. If the company is doing something wrong because that guy didn't listen to you, then make your own company that does it the right way and put him out of business.

 

Sometimes though you cannot do that for various reason and then your options become limited. If you don't back down or run away from ignorance, your only choice is violence... .

 

But remember, just like in the case of the criminal's punishment from a determinist's point of view, the smack in the face is nothing more than a means to an end.

 

Are there really two types of fallacists?

 

And I think that, though it is true that some people know they are using a fallacy to convince other people of something, ("If the glove don't fit, you must acquit") those people somewhere in their mind hold a belief that makes them feel justified in doing so. And that belief, is probably a fallacy, and that person probably simply doesn't know its a fallacy. So the two types of people you mention are one and the same in my view.