DialecticMaterialist
30th January 2004, 03:40 AM
Which do people here think is more reasonable during the course of a debate, more specifically an online debate. That the person making the claim present their evidence for the said claim, by some normal means like giving a link, quoting a source, etc?
Or that the person not making the claim research into whether another's claim was true or relevant?
To many the former inability to comply can sound like their setting up a "wild goose chase", to the latter inability to comply may sound like "not doing one's homework."
I personally lean more towards the former category, that of people presenting proof. This is of course for reasons stemming from informal logic (it is technically proof surrogate to claim you have evidence and not present it),
Proof surrogate. This type of slanter works by alleging that proof for a claim exists without actually offering the proof.
http://www.mhhe.com/mayfieldpub/ct/ch04/glossary.htm
And due to practical considerations. Namely, its pretty easy for one person to present their evidence, but it can be tedious for another person to research all available evidence on a subject until one finds the relevant piece of information.
Also the first system is far easier to cheat. It is easy to evaluate someone's evidence presented on the spot.
For the second method though, one has to somehow prove that the evidence "doesn't exist" and "is not relevant". A rather taxing, sometimes impossible task. Allowing people to make up stuff almost endlessly and counter with "look it up", "research it", "do your homework" ad infinitum.
My position on this is not absolute of course. Everyone should come in with some basic knowledge of the subject, that which is obvious of course. And sometimes subjects are simply too difficult to prove completely in the course of one thread or conversation, like evolution (though imo, one should always be willing to prove as much of it as possible within reason). To all of this though one should always I believe offer a little proof, or a step in the right direction-such as directing a creationist to talk origins.org or a site explaining the basic material as a matter of charity and to, hopefully, remove honest doubt.
Of course measuring what is a "complex issue" or "basic knowledge" isn't exactly a science, so confusion and honest disagreement arises I imagine.
What would be everyone else's opinion on this matter? Should the person finding the claim usually present their proof, or should the person evaluating the claim have to find the evidence/ do research?
Which way do you lean towards, and what should be done in ambiguous cases?
Or that the person not making the claim research into whether another's claim was true or relevant?
To many the former inability to comply can sound like their setting up a "wild goose chase", to the latter inability to comply may sound like "not doing one's homework."
I personally lean more towards the former category, that of people presenting proof. This is of course for reasons stemming from informal logic (it is technically proof surrogate to claim you have evidence and not present it),
Proof surrogate. This type of slanter works by alleging that proof for a claim exists without actually offering the proof.
http://www.mhhe.com/mayfieldpub/ct/ch04/glossary.htm
And due to practical considerations. Namely, its pretty easy for one person to present their evidence, but it can be tedious for another person to research all available evidence on a subject until one finds the relevant piece of information.
Also the first system is far easier to cheat. It is easy to evaluate someone's evidence presented on the spot.
For the second method though, one has to somehow prove that the evidence "doesn't exist" and "is not relevant". A rather taxing, sometimes impossible task. Allowing people to make up stuff almost endlessly and counter with "look it up", "research it", "do your homework" ad infinitum.
My position on this is not absolute of course. Everyone should come in with some basic knowledge of the subject, that which is obvious of course. And sometimes subjects are simply too difficult to prove completely in the course of one thread or conversation, like evolution (though imo, one should always be willing to prove as much of it as possible within reason). To all of this though one should always I believe offer a little proof, or a step in the right direction-such as directing a creationist to talk origins.org or a site explaining the basic material as a matter of charity and to, hopefully, remove honest doubt.
Of course measuring what is a "complex issue" or "basic knowledge" isn't exactly a science, so confusion and honest disagreement arises I imagine.
What would be everyone else's opinion on this matter? Should the person finding the claim usually present their proof, or should the person evaluating the claim have to find the evidence/ do research?
Which way do you lean towards, and what should be done in ambiguous cases?