Debating

[pljames]

I just came from seeing two exstremely emotional movies, The Son Of God and God is not dead. I saw the philosophical question the debate and the answers.  My question is why is there a debate? A questioner is trying to bring you to doubt your belief, the whole philosophy of the debate. The movies drew me and the audience in, and kept us spellbound. Why ask questions like, who created the universe and then debate it?

In writing the writer needs to draw the reader in, and keep them there, by appealing to there inquisitive minds. Knowledge supposedly is searching for truth within knowledge itself. The so called facts might be altered to present the wrong facts...believed. Why do writers write? Because of the love of writing and hopefully the wisdom it gives. Thoughts please? Paul

Edited March 28, 2014 by pljames

[Buffy]

Debate is about persuasion, but the techniques and approach used are completely different based on the audience.

 

There is a proliferation of debate based on "wrong facts" today in spite of the fact that such facts are easily refuted these days via the internet. The reason for this has to do with the fact that such debate is not meant to convince people who disagree, or in many cases, not even those who are undecided because they are primarily "red meat" to keep true believers engaged and committed. Conversely, it is precisely those true believers who will instantly go into denial in the face of facts that disprove their beliefs.

 

If you go back in time you'll find tribes that were essentially only concerned with their own tribal members. If you were a member of another tribe, you could be killed with impunity, :phones:

Buffy

[pljames]

Buffy,

 Well stated. Paul

Edited March 28, 2014 by pljames

[PersonalPronoun]

Hi, I'd like to butt in here, if I may........

 

There is a proliferation of debate based on "wrong facts" today in spite of the fact that such facts are easily refuted these days via the internet.

Buffy

In my opinion, the Internet has brought a highlighted understanding of the true nature of the problem with science and it's "facts."

(I'm not a hater of science, by the way, I get a lot of great feeling inspiration from it.)

 

For any possible theory you might postulate, I could go to google and find another, "peer reviewed," scientist who has his/her own proofs that you are wrong.

Invariably, the person confronted with this opposing view answers with something like, "well that article is three years old," or "no one believes that crackpot," or something similar.

I love science more than all the other forms of "reality study" we have created, but I try to keep it in it's place.

 

The picture of a tree is not the tree.

Science is a picture of reality.

The picture of reality is not the reality.

[Eclogite]

That is an interesting perspective, but I'd like to challenge you on it.

 

1. What do you consider to be the "true nature of the problem with science and its 'facts' " ?I suspect that those problems exist differe markedly from what you see as the problem, but cannot be sure until you define this. Would you do so, please.

 

2. I strongly disagree with the conclusions you draw from your next statement. Certainly I can find, if I search hard enough, peer reviewed publications that deny the reality of plate tectonics. But if I ask one hundred Earth scientists if they agree that plate tectonics is a reality, in most cases one hundred of them will say yes. Disagreement arises, as it should, when we get down to the detail. There is rarely disagreement on the large picture. (There is an exception to this, but I think it will emerge during our discussion. For the moment I'll just say Kuhn.)

 

The same is true if I ask about evolution, or cosmology, or a score of other disciplines and theories.

 

3. The assertion "That article is three years old" is a valid objection, if there are more recent articles that clearly and emphatically provide new and relevant evidence, or argument.

"No one believes that crackpot", might be a valid point in a bar-room debate, it has no place in a serious discussion, unless accompanied with evidence that the author is a crackpot. i.e. evidence.

 

4. Your tree analogy breaks down, because the picture of the tree is not an explanation of the tree. Science can provide an explanation of the tree.

 

I would be pleased to discuss any subject area you wish, but I'll open with one I have some familiarity with

[PersonalPronoun]

That is an interesting perspective, but I'd like to challenge you on it.

 

1. What do you consider to be the "true nature of the problem with science and its 'facts' " ?

I was attempting to express a general distrust of any current conclusions made by scientists.

You are undoubtedly aware that the conclusions of science change faster than, Clark Kent changes into superman.

This is the way it should be, science would be worthless if it didn't change when new info presents itself to us.

Unfortunately, therein lies the problem.

 

It's a problem that we can not get around, except by withholding all conclusions until everything is known.

It's unlikely that we are ever going to know everything, and likely that much of what is considered to be fact today, will change as new information becomes available tomorrow.

 

This problem subtracts from the power of the exacting standards of the method.

No matter how precisely we study a thing, new information has the power to trump what ever conclusions we think we've discovered.

How can I trust any current conclusion?

 

Later, we can discuss the issue of our lack of emotional maturity in deciding what to create once we discover that we can create it.

And possibly, discuss how much of "better" is good for us as a species.

 

4. Your tree analogy breaks down, because the picture of the tree is not an explanation of the tree. Science can provide an explanation of the tree.

Well, it is only a metaphor after all, but I feel it is a solid one.

The picture of the tree......oh hell! This is me dropping the metaphor........

 

Why should we need numbers to represent reality when we can just observe the real thing?

Because, reality does not fit into our understanding.

We can not observe a billion of anything with any kind of precision.

Furthermore, there are some things we can not observe at all.

 

Numbers tell us that there is not enough mass in the universe to explain certain of our observations.

Dark matter seems fishy to me.

 

It's simply not possible, at our current technology level, for us to understand -without numbers- the gravitational forces present in something as large as a galaxy.

The only "picture" we can use to attempt these understandings, is math.

Wait now, let me pick up my metaphor.....

 

The above example is no different from trying to figure out the physical make up of a tree by looking at a picture of a tree.

We created the math, just like we created the camera.

 

I would be pleased to discuss any subject area you wish

Yeah me too, but I don't mind being unfamiliar with a topic.

That's just an opportunity to learn something new.

 

We can go back and revisit the parts I snipped if you'd like, I only snipped them so I could be more precise on the main point without writing a novel.

If you do not mind exceptionally long posts I will gladly make them. I threw away at least as much stuff as I left in.

 

And......Thanks for not just calling "bullshit," instead of asking for clarification.

It's going to be a pleasure to debate with you, (in spite of the fact that you're not going to let me be lazy about it.)

 

By the way, Kuhn seems to have already appeared, if only in spirit.

Edited February 8, 2015 by PersonalPronoun

[Buffy]

 

I was attempting to express a general distrust of any current conclusions made by scientists.
You are undoubtedly aware that the conclusions of science change faster than, Clark Kent changes into superman.
This is the way it should be, science would be worthless if it didn't change when new info presents itself to us.
Unfortunately, therein lies the problem.

 

Are you nailing everything down then? You know someone might discover that the science behind gravity is all wrong and your stuff might float away....

 

Seriously, there is indeed a point at which with every scientific theory that it is indeed "proven" and further debate is pointless, and worse, because it may have significant public policy implications, continuing to call into question or demand "freedom" to ignore widely accepted science is down-right dangerous.

 

We're now on the verge of a major measles epidemic precisely because of this sort of "logic."

 

So the critical question is, what mechanism do you put in place to prevent literally every scientific proposition as being definitionally "debatable" and therefore subject to any one saying "we don't really know anything about anything, so I can do whatever I want."

 

What do you think we should do about the nature of "scientific facts" and their relationship to, well, reality?

 

 

Reality is the leading cause of stress amongst those in touch with it, :phones:

Buffy

[PersonalPronoun]

Hi, Buffy. It's nice to meet you.

 

Are you nailing everything down then?

 

No, I don't think so. I think I'm just having a debate on an Internet forum.

 

 

Seriously, there is indeed a point at which with every scientific theory that it is indeed "proven" and further debate is pointless, and worse, because it may have significant public policy implications, continuing to call into question or demand "freedom" to ignore widely accepted science is down-right dangerous.

 

Ok, that's a bit frightening.

Are you suggesting that I should not feel free to disagree with widely accepted science?

Is it because it's widely accepted?

 

We're now on the verge of a major measles epidemic precisely because of this sort of "logic."

"this sort of "logic?"

That was rude.

 

Like it or not, we are humans not mice in a lab.

People are free to not get vaccinated if they choose not to.

 

While we may think it would be best for humanity if we were to force people to get vaccinated, we would lose something of greater value in doing it.

I would not enjoy living in the Orwellian world that may ensue if we were to take that most basic freedom away.

 

 

So the critical question is, what mechanism do you put in place to prevent literally every scientific proposition as being definitionally "debatable"

None whatsoever. I think it is quite right that we should be free to debate all of the things we think we know.

 

Because of this kind of logic, (There! We're even now.) it took twenty years for Einsteins theory of relativity to become widely accepted.

If our science were twenty years advanced, then we may have solved the energy crises by now.

We might have solved our -impending- over population problem.

 

 

and therefore subject to any one saying "we don't really know anything about anything, so I can do whatever I want."

Pardon me for saying so, but this just seems like histrionics to me.

An appeal to truth through fear.

How did you infer this from anything I wrote?

 

No, I do not suggest anarchy just because there is a problem with science.

Instead, I suggest that we not put all our eggs into one basket.

I suggest that to understand reality -as much as is possible- we rely upon the whole of life's experiences rather than any single method.

 

 

What do you think we should do about the nature of "scientific facts" and their relationship to, well, reality?

 

Which facts are the immutable ones again?

 In the immortal words of captain Jean Luc Picard "Things are only impossible until they aren't!"

We've witnessed this truth uncountable times throughout human history.

Once, it was impossible for us to fly.

Once, it was impossible to flip a switch and let there be light!

Our knowledge changes reality for us. Shouldn't we be -just a little bit- wary of that power?

 

So, I suggest that we keep doing what we are already doing, and stop doing something we're trying to do.

We should keep on questioning reality and continue seeking answers.

We should stop trying to eradicate all that is not science.

I didn't say much when science started to try to get rid of religion, because I'm not religious.

I got a little irritated when science began to write the eulogy for philosophy.

But, it would be rather horrible to live in a world where science was the only game in town.

 

Having said all of that i'll end by quoting myself from the first post I made to you in this thread:

 

"I love science more than all of the forms of "reality study" we have created, but I try to keep it in its place."

 

 

 

 

 

Reality is the leading cause of stress amongst those in touch with it, :phones:

Buffy

[Racoon]

For the OP:  Please just Seperate Paragraphs...  

[Buffy]

Like it or not, we are humans not mice in a lab.

People are free to not get vaccinated if they choose not to.

 

You're missing the question entirely: The point in this specific case is that such "freedom to choose" impinges on the "freedom to survive" because of the issue of the need for those who are truly allergic to vaccines must rely on "herd immunity" in order to have a solid chance at avoiding the disease. That is, there is a social imperative to ensure that the vaccination rate is above the level required for herd immunity.

 

That makes the larger question: at what point is a scientific finding important enough that the needs of society should trump any individual "freedom" to decide to disbelieve those findings.

 

What do you think?

 

You do say:

 

 

While we may think it would be best for humanity if we were to force people to get vaccinated, we would lose something of greater value in doing it.

I would not enjoy living in the Orwellian world that may ensue if we were to take that most basic freedom away.

 

...which--ignoring the fact that that's an "appeal to truth through fear"--seems to be a statement that you believe that there should be no such ability of society to enforce conduct by individuals that provides for the common good.

 

I'm not saying such distinctions are easy to draw, nor am I implying that you're at the level of sociopathic anarchy that you'd advocate "freedom to murder" (in spite of the fact that that's kind of the implication of "freedom not to vaccinate" for folks that rely on herd immunity), but what I am trying to get you to realize is that you're making an argument that is basically: "Science is never settled, therefore just about any behavior can be justified by "questioning science."

 

I mean, if you can say that any scientific hypothesis can be discounted because there might be some disproof right around the corner because we just haven't tried enough things yet, then what is the point of doing it at all?

 

At some point, the findings of science need to be accepted as "laws" (in several senses of that word), upon which we can order society. 

 

I think you get this, but I'm not getting any sense you've thought much about the consequences and how we get there:

 

No, I do not suggest anarchy just because there is a problem with science.

Instead, I suggest that we not put all our eggs into one basket.

I suggest that to understand reality -as much as is possible- we rely upon the whole of life's experiences rather than any single method.

 

So what exactly do you mean by that? What other "life's experiences" do we include along with the science to make such decisions?

 

I'm not saying this is simple. Saying "scientific findings of any level of certainty should be blindly followed" is just as foolish as saying "all science is questionable and therefore should be ignored."

 

The truth is somewhere in the middle and the real challenge is to discuss what that middle is and how we get there. 

 

You're at least saying you're not for anarchy, but quite frankly if you don't stop and accept that some part of science is "settled"--and no, we're not talking about whether it's "possible to fly" but rather whether gravity works or if we've given MMR shots to several billion people that we have enough numbers to show that death/autism rates are at a specific level--then we do indeed have anarchy by default.

 

 

If I let go of a hammer on a planet that has a positive gravity, I need not see it fall to know that it has, in fact, fallen, :phones:

Buffy

[Eclogite]

.

People are free to not get vaccinated if they choose not to.

 

 

Lot's of interesting points, but it's my bedtime and so I just picked on this one. People, then, should also be free to drive at 90 mph in a residential neighbourhood, while drunk? If not, why not. Such behaviour - irresponsible driving, or failure to vaccinate - endagers the rest of us. Should we accept those dangers just to protect the freedom of the individual?

 

Edit: beaten to the punch by Buffy.

[PersonalPronoun]

Eclogite, and Buffy. You both make points that I'll enjoy responding to, but I too must go to sleep now.

Ill reach for my iPad as soon as I awake.

Goodnight.

[Racoon]

Or you could just keep out Illegal Aliens at the Border..

Got enough already.

[Buffy]

Or you could just keep out Illegal Aliens at the Border..

 

That's unlikely to have any impact on the stability of the gravity field of the Earth, Rac.

 

 

In the first stage of life the mind is frivolous and easily distracted, it misses progress by failing in consecutiveness and persistence. This is the condition of children and barbarians, in which instinct has learned nothing from experience, :phones:

Buffy

[PersonalPronoun]

Lot's of interesting points, but it's my bedtime and so I just picked on this one. People, then, should also be free to drive at 90 mph in a residential neighbourhood, while drunk? If not, why not. Such behaviour - irresponsible driving, or failure to vaccinate - endagers the rest of us. Should we accept those dangers just to protect the freedom of the individual?

 

Edit: beaten to the punch by Buffy.

Morning guys. Let's get right into it then.

 

First of all, you guys are presenting me with two arguments that are not equal. 

On one hand it's the train dilemma, and on the other hand it's still the anarchy argument.

 

No, the guy does not have the right to purposely endanger your life by driving 90 mph through your neighborhood. 

That would be anarchy.

 

However, he does have the right not to take the life of the one guy on the tracks even though it results in the deaths of the other four people on the tracks.

(I'm sure you are both familiar with the train dilemma, but if not google it just like that "train dilemma.")

 

Just like in the train dilemma, it's not my fault if you are harmed by something I have nothing to do with. 

 

This analogous argument fits better:

Suppose you are a parent. You are taking your two children to the beach. Your neighbors child, who is friends with your children, wants to go along, and has his/her parents permission to do so.

 

So, you take all three kids to the beach. 

You find out once you get there, that the neighbors kid is afraid of the water and only wants to play in the sand. 

That would be fine, except you worry that this kids fear will infect your children. 

 

Do you have the right to force the child into the water? 

You are going to be right there with the child. You know that the child is going to be safe. You've already experienced the water many times, and you know there's no danger. 

So, it's ok to force the child into the water, right? 

 

I'll turn this part of the discussion back to you, and answer the other points that, Buffy presented. 

[PersonalPronoun]

You're missing the question entirely:

 

 

Ok, part of my position on this is up there in my answer to, Eclogite. 

 

That is, there is a social imperative to ensure that the vaccination rate is above the level required for herd immunity.

To this, I ask why? Where does this social imperative come from? 

There was a time when this social imperative made sense, and that brings me to the main position I will argue from.

 

1) Society has out grown its ability to continue as it is. 

2) By all appearances, society has begun to collapse.

 

If 2 is correct, then I think 1 is the reason why.

We do not have a built in off switch. We don't know when to stop a good thing before it turns bad. 

 

If we go back to the train dilemma for a minute, we see that in the first part of the dilemma, most people don't have a moral issue with pulling the switch.

They feel it's ok to trade one persons life for four peoples lives. 

But, when the second part of the dilemma is added, -the fat man on the bridge- people almost invariably choose not to throw the fat man off the bridge to save the four. 

Furthermore, after the fat man scenario, when people go back to the first part of the dilemma, they almost invariably change their minds. 

After they've thought about it from the single individuals view point they say they would not pull the switch to save the four. 

There is however, one exception:

If you make one of the four into a close family member, people do, -with little hesitation- pull the switch to save the family member. 

I believe this is hardwired. (So does Darwin.)

It's also why your social imperative makes sense in a small society, and not in a mega-society. 

 

In an evolutionary sense we are, individuals, and part of a closely knit family group. 

But in the mega-society we have no evolutionary impetus to give up our own safety -perceived or real- for that of a stranger. 

 

Would you jump off the bridge to save your child? 

Almost certainly you would.

Would you jump off the bridge to save a stranger? 

You'd like to take the high road and say you would, ( and maybe you, Buffy are noble enough to do it. There are heroes.) but most people would not. 

 

After the event, would you walk up to the person who did not jump, and berate them for not giving their life so the stranger could live? 

 

 

That makes the larger question: at what point is a scientific finding important enough that the needs of society should trump any individual "freedom" to decide to disbelieve those findings.

 

What do you think?

 

Who decides what is important to either the individual or the society? 

The "society" is a large body. 

Which of the individual's of the society agreed to allow you (or science) to decide what is important to the whole of society? 

Was it a large group? 

Was it the majority, And, if it was the majority, then who has the voice of the minority? 

What if I disagree, not with the validity of the science, but with the value of that science to the whole of human kind? 

 

but what I am trying to get you to realize is that you're making an argument that is basically: "Science is never settled, therefore just about any behavior can be justified by "questioning science."

 I've answered the first part of this paragraph in the above post to, Eclogite.

 

I must continue to disagree that you are stating my argument correctly in the second part of the paragraph. 

I repeat, I do not, and have not suggested that just about any behavior can be justified by questioning science. 

 

The correct conclusion is: Science is never settled, so I am somewhat wary of its results. 

 

What I am trying to get you to realize is that I believe science is not the final authority. (You're free to believe it is.)

 

Allow me to turn the question around on you:

If science concluded that it was ok for us to kill everyone who vaguely threatened us, would you do it?

 

I mean, if you can say that any scientific hypothesis can be discounted because there might be some disproof right around the corner because we just haven't tried enough things yet, then what is the point of doing it at all?

 

To keep finding what is just around the corner. 

I'm only advocating that we be careful with our conclusions, not that we stop doing science.

 

At some point, the findings of science need to be accepted as "laws" (in several senses of that word), upon which we can order society.

In some cases, I agree with you, and in some cases so does the rest of society, but not in all cases. 

I continue to reserve the right to question any of the findings of science. 

 

 

I think you get this, but I'm not getting any sense you've thought much about the consequences and how we get there:

We were only just beginning this discussion to this point. 

I think our sense of each other will grow significantly before we're finished. 

 

So what exactly do you mean by that? What other "life's experiences" do we include along with the science to make such decisions?

All other life's experiences. 

The actual, visceral experience of being.

Is the study of reality -through science- the only important thing in life's experience?

 

I'm not saying this is simple. Saying "scientific findings of any level of certainty should be blindly followed" is just as foolish as saying "all science is questionable and therefore should be ignored."

I neither inferred, nor directly wrote that because science is questionable it should be ignored.

 

 

The truth is somewhere in the middle and the real challenge is to discuss what that middle is and how we get there.

I agree. 

 

You're at least saying you're not for anarchy, but quite frankly if you don't stop and accept that some part of science is "settled" then we do indeed have anarchy by default.

I disagree with the end result. 

Some of these things have no real life importance, some of them have great importance. 

Gravity will do what it does whether we understand it or not.

My distrust in dark matter has nothing to do with whether or not I think we should get vaccinated. 

 

You say that the truth is in the middle, but where is the middle ground that you agree to? 

 

If I let go of a hammer on a planet that has a positive gravity, I need not see it fall to know that it has, in fact, fallen, :phones:

Buffy

[Eclogite]

First of all, you guys are presenting me with two arguments that are not equal. 

 

No, the guy does not have the right to purposely endanger your life by driving 90 mph through your neighborhood. 

That would be anarchy.

 

However, he does have the right not to take the life of the one guy on the tracks even though it results in the deaths of the other four people on the tracks.

(I'm sure you are both familiar with the train dilemma, but if not google it just like that "train dilemma.")

The driver is not purposely endangering my life. Frankly, screw my life, he is inadvertently endangering many people's lives through ignorance, stupidity and arrogance: not a pleasant mix.

The family who decline to have their children vaccinated because they make decisions based on emotion, lack of education and false logic are endagering the lives of many thousands. If they are allowed to do so then that is anarchy. Until such time as they are compelled to do so, I shall fulfill my duty as a citizen in attempting to educate and persuade them, and - failing that - berate, ridicule and condemn them.

 

 

Suppose you are a parent. You are taking your two children to the beach. Your neighbors child, who is friends with your children, wants to go along, and has his/her parents permission to do so.

 

So, you take all three kids to the beach. 

You find out once you get there, that the neighbors kid is afraid of the water and only wants to play in the sand. 

That would be fine, except you worry that this kids fear will infect your children.

I don't worry about this at all. My children are already comfortable in the water. They are not going to get "infected by fear" because their friend wants to play on the beach. They may well be unaware that he is uncomfortable. I certainly shan't be flaggin it for them. 

 

Now if they are aware, or become aware of the fear I shall use it as an opportunity to encourage them to persuade their young friend to have a go. Peer pressure can work wonders and I am on hand to get them to back off if necessary. Thus the situation becomes a useful life lesson for them.

 

Do you have the right to force the child into the water? 

You are going to be right there with the child. You know that the child is going to be safe. You've already experienced the water many times, and you know there's no danger. 

So, it's ok to force the child into the water, right?

Of course it is not OK. That constitutes child abuse. Even if it did not, the likely reaction of the child creates the risk that my children will develop negative thoughts surrounding the water.

 

And honestly, I don't see how the analogy matches the vaccination discussion point. I think it would be more useful to focus on the reality, not the analogies - at least in this instance.