Quality of Argument and Debate

[Architect]

In the year or so that I've been posting on this site, it seems that the quality of argument posted by members of the Truth Movement has declined drastically; I don't mean the underlying propositions (which are as shaky as ever) but rather the ability of the posters to present a cogent, reasoned argument which can in turn stimulate a reasonable exchange of views.

The problems are legion: argumentum ad baculum, ad ignorantiam (a favourite, there), ad populum, ad verecundiam (Charlie Sheen fans please note), dicto simpliciter, non-causa pro-causa (Jones, for a start), circulus in demonstrando, simple fallacies of presupposition, affirmation of the consequent (a really popular one), and last (but by no means least) bifurication.

What I think is more blatant, however, is that many of the Truth posters are unable to even present an argument. In particular they fail to recognise that (to quote the Monty Python sketch) an argument is "a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition".

There are three stages to an argument: Premises, inference, and conclusion.

Stage one: Premises

One or more propositions will be are necessary for the argument to continue. They must be stated explicitly. They are called the premises of the argument. They are the evidence (or reasons) for accepting the argument and its conclusions.


Premises (or assertions) are often indicated by phrases such as "because", "since", "obviously" and so on.

This is a key problem area for many posters; they sources quoted are often partial, and sometimes misinterpreted. There is over reliance on a few sources, for example Jones or Prison Planet. But sometimes, such as in Zen''s current "liability" thread, the poster simply fails to make his case sufficiently clear. This latter point is, I think, a growing problem.Stage two: Inference

The premises of the argument are used to obtain further propositions. This process is known as inference. In inference, we start with one or more propositions which have been accepted. We then derive a new proposition. There are various forms of valid inference.


The propositions arrived at by inference may then be used in further inference. Inference is often denoted by phrases such as "implies that" or "therefore".

The big problem here seems to be poor reasoning of inference. This is where we see the likes of argumentum ad ignorantium, of non-causa pro-causa, or circulus in demonstrando.
Stage three: Conclusion

Finally, we arrive at the conclusion of the argument, another proposition. The conclusion is often stated as the final stage of inference. It is affirmed on the basis the original premises, and the inference from them. Conclusions are often indicated by phrases such as "therefore", "it follows that", "we conclude" and so on.

The trouble here is that even when the Truthers manage a decent conclusion, they base it on error ridden stage 1 and 2 hence fatally undermining their own case.

The purpose of this thread is to post a fairly simple question; if we accept that the quality of CT posting/argument is diminishing then would it be appropriate for us to include, as a sticky (for example) a set of clear and concise guidelines for all posters (but especially the Truth Movement) setting out minimum presentational and evidential standards?

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

would it be appropriate for us to include, as a sticky (for example) a set of clear and concise guidelines for all posters (but especially the Truth Movement) setting out minimum presentational and evidential standards?

Like a bull**** filter, hopefully weeding out some of the more crazier claims/arguments at the early stages?

Nice idea, but how many of these people do you actually think would read and adhere to it? They clearly don't do enough reading (of the right things anyway) as it is.

[Architect]

This is where I think we have to try and self-censor our inevitable cacophanies of "yer an erse" which aways happen when these abysmal posts appear. At the risk of sounding like one of the Mods from the BAUT forum, we need to redirect the original poster back to the guidance with a polite "try again, chum" or a "what do you mean by....".

I'm not for one moment suggesting that it would be easy or go without problems, but rather at the moment we're working in a bit of a vaccum and need some sort of framework we can use in presenting the debates on the conspiracy forum.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

It would be good to have guidelines to refer them to, but unless these guidelines categorically state:

"You are right."

"Evidence? You don't need no stinkin' evidence..."

"You are right."

"9/11 was an inside job."

"Just keep telling them they are wrong - they'll come round."

"You are right."

I don't think they'll get adhered to. Plus, they will probably turn the tables and try to use such a guide to 'prove' that 'the JRFERs' are trying to 'tell them what to say, or how to say it', or that the 'JRFERs' will 'ignore any argument unless it's presented how THEY want it presented'.

Besides, your whole 'guideline' suggestion is based on the premise that these people have anything compelling or coherent to say which could be structured in such a way. I think you have more chance of plaiting snot than you have of finding a 'truther' with a genuine, coherent 'argument'.

[westprog]

In the year or so that I've been posting on this site, it seems that the quality of argument posted by members of the Truth Movement has declined drastically; I don't mean the underlying propositions (which are as shaky as ever) but rather the ability of the posters to present a cogent, reasoned argument which can in turn stimulate a reasonable exchange of views.

Something similar happened with the Creationists. There was an acceptance for a while that, yes, it's absurd to claim that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Then gradually the people who were capable of thinking clearly abandoned the entire edifice. The only ones left were the true believers, who were quite incapable of applying reason.

I'd expect this to happen in a big way if and when LC gets some kind of exposure. There will be some kind of of thesis proposed, and it will be comprehensively demolished all over the world (Islamic countries possibly excepted). When the dust has cleared, there will be a smaller but more convinced group who will gravitate to noplane dustification space ray theories.


The purpose of this thread is to post a fairly simple question; if we accept that the quality of CT posting/argument is diminishing then would it be appropriate for us to include, as a sticky (for example) a set of clear and concise guidelines for all posters (but especially the Truth Movement) setting out minimum presentational and evidential standards?

At what point is the line fixed between posts where the errors are immediately apparent, and those where the errors require a small degree of research to expose? I can't imagine any such set of rules that wouldn't effectively ban all CT proponents permanently.

While there's clearly no benefit in arguing with them, there is some value in clearly disecting their propositions and explaining where the faults in logic and fact actually lie.

[ZENSMACK89]

Frank Greening on the JREFers:

"It all gets pretty much routine because the JREFers always use one or more of the following modes of attack:

(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.
(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.

When a CTist retreats, the JREFers pass the time patting each other on the back for another debunking job well done and discuss how idiotic that particular CTist was. While this may be a source of entertainment for the JREFers, this type of mutual admiration is not particularly helpful to anyone seeking to understand how the Twin Towers collapsed. In fact, I would say that the JREFers appear to be fixated only on smothering scientific debate under a blanket of NIST, FEMA, Kean, Fox and CNN “Truths”! But as Leonardo da Vinci so aptly states: “Whoever in a discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but rather memory.”

[Disbelief]

Zen, what does this have to do with the quality of argument?

[Cuddles]

an argument is "a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition".

No it isn't.:duck:

[Drs_Res]

No it isn't.:duck:

Yes it tis, it isn't just contradiction.

[timhau]

Frank Greening on the JREFers:

"It all gets pretty much routine because the JREFers always use one or more of the following modes of attack:

(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”

That's the easiest taunt in the history of ever to counter. Unless, of course, you have no evidence...

[Architect]

Frank Greening on the JREFers:

"It all gets pretty much routine because the JREFers always use one or more of the following modes of attack:

(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.
(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.

When a CTist retreats, the JREFers pass the time patting each other on the back for another debunking job well done and discuss how idiotic that particular CTist was. While this may be a source of entertainment for the JREFers, this type of mutual admiration is not particularly helpful to anyone seeking to understand how the Twin Towers collapsed. In fact, I would say that the JREFers appear to be fixated only on smothering scientific debate under a blanket of NIST, FEMA, Kean, Fox and CNN “Truths”! But as Leonardo da Vinci so aptly states: “Whoever in a discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but rather memory.”

It ill behoves you as one of the worst proponents of the problem to comment, however I note with some considerable amusement that - as usual - you've failed to actually present a reasoned argument or indeed a solution.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Frank Greening on the JREFers:

"It all gets pretty much routine because the JREFers always use one or more of the following modes of attack:

(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.
(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.

When a CTist retreats, the JREFers pass the time patting each other on the back for another debunking job well done and discuss how idiotic that particular CTist was. While this may be a source of entertainment for the JREFers, this type of mutual admiration is not particularly helpful to anyone seeking to understand how the Twin Towers collapsed. In fact, I would say that the JREFers appear to be fixated only on smothering scientific debate under a blanket of NIST, FEMA, Kean, Fox and CNN “Truths”! But as Leonardo da Vinci so aptly states: “Whoever in a discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but rather memory.”

(i) I'd suggest this is because NIST is pretty thorough and makes more sense than CD.

(ii) Yes, it's pretty gut-wrenching to be taunted about something you don't have, and probably never will. Damn these JREFers and their insistence on pesky trivialities like 'evidence' and 'proof'!

(iii) Well, seems fair to me if someone posts unfounded drivel and tries to pass it off as scientific or engineering fact.

(iv) Damn, why IS that?!

(v) Damn, WHY would they DO that?! They just don't play fair do they?

Of course, the 'Truth Movement' would never indulge in petty 'back-patting' would they...

In fact, I would say that the JREFers appear to be fixated only on smothering scientific debate under a blanket of science and hard facts - Corrected.

But as Leonardo da Vinci so aptly states: “Whoever in a discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but rather memory

So if I was an engineer bringing to bear everything that I have been taught regarding engineering, am I remembering, or using my intellect? Should I forget everything I know then, and just use 'intellect' to help me make 'best guesses'?! Or are you implying that if I wasn't an engineer, but remembered an extremely authorative and relevant engineering article, it would not be valid in a discussion because I have only 'remembered' it?

Does this mean that Frank Greening's 'apt use' of that quote is invalid because he only remembered it, not said it himself?

[T.A.M.]

Frank Greening on the JREFers:

"It all gets pretty much routine because the JREFers always use one or more of the following modes of attack:

(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.
(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.

When a CTist retreats, the JREFers pass the time patting each other on the back for another debunking job well done and discuss how idiotic that particular CTist was. While this may be a source of entertainment for the JREFers, this type of mutual admiration is not particularly helpful to anyone seeking to understand how the Twin Towers collapsed. In fact, I would say that the JREFers appear to be fixated only on smothering scientific debate under a blanket of NIST, FEMA, Kean, Fox and CNN “Truths”! But as Leonardo da Vinci so aptly states: “Whoever in a discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but rather memory.”

I appreciate your need to quote the words of someone capable of a cogent conversation, but you think if you had a gripe, you would use your own words.

TAM:)

[Reality Believer]

Architect, RE: the OP. I have pondered a similar thing in another online format (video), and once put together a simulated presentation based of my knowledge of the truth movements arguments.

I would suggest that you, or someone who is inclined, put your truther hat on, and construct the argument FOR them. We pretty much know the whole thing backward and forward.

Maybe create an obvious sock account (with admin approval) and argue on their behalf in a dedicated thread. The holes will then be logically illustrated.

[Architect]

Architect, RE: the OP. I have pondered a similar thing in another online format (video), and once put together a simulated presentation based of my knowledge of the truth movements arguments.

I would suggest that you, or someone who is inclined, put your truther hat on, and construct the argument FOR them. We pretty much know the whole thing backward and forward.

Maybe create an obvious sock account (with admin approval) and argue on their behalf in a dedicated thread. The holes will then be logically illustrated.

The irony is that we could almost certainly do it a damned sight better than 95% of the posters here.

Mind you, having ploughed through the NIST report does help.

[Architect]

Back on OP then, what do our resident Truthers actually think of the proposition?

[Drudgewire]

While this may be a source of entertainment for the JREFers, this type of mutual admiration is not particularly helpful to anyone seeking to understand how the Twin Towers collapsed.
It does to anyone who isn't paranoid, deluded, or going in with politically-based preconceptions.

If someone wants facts rather than "proof of an inside job," slam-dunk debunkings of CT garbage and the requisite victory dance will make an impact. :cool:

[tsig]

Zen, what does this have to do with the quality of argument?

He trying to prove a point and he did.

The OP was correct.

Thanks A

(cain't spell)

[coughymachine]

Back on OP then, what do our resident Truthers actually think of the proposition?

I think it smacks of intellectual snobbery, as does the way the OP is worded. I'm no Einstein, that's for sure, but I'm no moron either. Yet I found myself 'Googling' a whole bunch of Latin phrases in order to understand the following paragraph:

The problems are legion: argumentum ad baculum, ad ignorantiam (a favourite, there), ad populum, ad verecundiam (Charlie Sheen fans please note), dicto simpliciter, non-causa pro-causa (Jones, for a start), circulus in demonstrando, simple fallacies of presupposition, affirmation of the consequent (a really popular one), and last (but by no means least) bifurication.

This is a public forum where people are invited to share their views and express them in any way they see fit. If JREF contributors lack the wherewithal to frame their argument in terms you find acceptable, then perhaps you should suggest the administrators vet new registrants rather than have them satisfy your 'argumentometer' with each new thread submission.

[GreNME]

I think that just attributing the problems with the quality of arguments around here to just belonging to the truthers is a little misplaced at best, an example of how the quality is being affected by more than just the truthers at worst. Most people here don't even try to reason out disagreements with posters who join and espouse truther ideas. Any truther who comes here gets dogpiled, is subjected to namecalling, and is pretty much ostracized the moment they subscribe to any "woo."

I realize Zen's ideas on conspiracy theories may seem completely wrong and worth correcting, but a little patience goes a long way. He's been reasonable with me when I've been reasonable with him.

[Nick227]

This is where I think we have to try and self-censor our inevitable cacophanies of "yer an erse" which aways happen when these abysmal posts appear. At the risk of sounding like one of the Mods from the BAUT forum, we need to redirect the original poster back to the guidance with a polite "try again, chum" or a "what do you mean by....".



I think it's great you raise this point. I think you also have to ask yourself, maybe as a group, whether or not you actually want CTists to involve themselves in this forum.

Personally, I find you have to be either pretty thick-skinned or pretty centered to even want to post here as a CTist. I mean, it is often that you write something and it's like a whole gaggle of crazed myna birds all simultaneously start cackling "Prove it, prove it" is some self-satisfied cacophony, few of them apparently interested in debating anything about what actually constitutes proof or evidence in specific cases. That said, there are also some excellent posters and I personally prefer it to put my energy more in the lion's den that somewhere where eveyone just agrees with me.

Nick

[Architect]

If JREF contributors lack the wherewithal to frame their argument in terms you find acceptable, then perhaps you should suggest the administrators vet new registrants rather than have them satisfy your 'argumentometer' with each new thread submission.

I disagree; surely the best way to deal with the issue is to provide guidance and a framework by which all contributors can best put their arguments forward? There may be valid points out there that are wholly obscured by crap presentation.

But that's only my view. Assuming that you agree that there's a problem, how do you think it might be addressed? I'm open to ideas and suggestions.


Personally, I find you have to be either pretty thick-skinned or pretty centered to even want to post here as a CTist. I mean, it is often that you write something and it's like a whole gaggle of crazed myna birds all simultaneously start cackling "Prove it, prove it" is some self-satisfied cacophony, few of them apparently interested in debating anything about what actually constitutes proof or evidence in specific cases. That said, there are also some excellent posters and I personally prefer it to put my energy more in the lion's den that somewhere where eveyone just agrees with me.


Well I think part of the problem is the poor quality of many of the posts here; there's also a real problem with people repeating issues which have already been done to death. But nonetheless I wholly agree that sometimes the JREF regulars can indeed punce the moment a CTist/er appears. A more measured response all round would, I think be a productive way forward.

Although I doubty any of us would disagree with the proposition that it's a damn site more measured and sane that LCF. I just wish it were a wee bit more like BAUT, sometimes.

[beachnut]

I think that just attributing the problems with the quality of arguments around here to just belonging to the truthers is a little misplaced at best, an example of how the quality is being affected by more than just the truthers at worst. Most people here don't even try to reason out disagreements with posters who join and espouse truther ideas. Any truther who comes here gets dogpiled, is subjected to namecalling, and is pretty much ostracized the moment they subscribe to any "woo."

I realize Zen's ideas on conspiracy theories may seem completely wrong and worth correcting, but a little patience goes a long way. He's been reasonable with me when I've been reasonable with him.
I think it is great to coddle the liars of the 9/11 truth movement. But my efforts will be limited to letting you do it.
The point is the level of their arguments do not go past hearsay and lies. If they had real facts we would see members of 9/11 truth with Pulitzer Prizes. Alas, they are fact less and pass on the lies of 9/11 truth.

[Nick227]

Well I think part of the problem is the poor quality of many of the posts here; there's also a real problem with people repeating issues which have already been done to death. But nonetheless I wholly agree that sometimes the JREF regulars can indeed punce the moment a CTist/er appears. A more measured response all round would, I think be a productive way forward.

I think it comes back to each individual trying to ascertain for themselves - do I want to know the truth, or do I want to be right? I like to think I'm sincerely in the former camp but am happy to admit that I might be in the latter. I wonder how many from JREF regulars can do the same. For each person - Are you really open to honest examination and discussion of evidence? Are you really open to the possibility that the CTists might be right? And that they might be wrong?

Nick

[Architect]

Nick

You've put your finger on an interesting point, although not necessarily one germaine to this thread. People do, on the whole, seek affirmation of their views and one of the most important things in science - or legal situations - is trying to set such issues to one side.

I'm not trained in either field. I came into this CT malarky because a lot of the technical "facts" paraded by key members of the Truth Movement are, frankly, wrong. Of the thousands of posts I've waded through I can say that yes, one or two posters have come out with some stonkingly good points which I'd never thought of.

One fellow on LCF was pursuing an argument about redundancy in steel framed structures and collapse patterns due to isolated failure. I think it's probably wrong, but it needs to be looked at. Unfortunately I was banned for being too polite and never yet managed to hear his full argument.


At the end of the day scepticism is about looking at ideas, assessing the evidence, and reaching a view. The trouble with many of the arguments presented here is that the OP doesn't post enough of an idea - or argument, if you will - to make it worthwhile.

[T.A.M.]

Everyone is likely in both camps Nick, it is simply a matter of not letting the latter get in the way of the former.

TAM:)

[LashL]

I think it smacks of intellectual snobbery, as does the way the OP is worded. I'm no Einstein, that's for sure, but I'm no moron either. Yet I found myself 'Googling' a whole bunch of Latin phrases in order to understand the following paragraph:

It is not intellectual snobbery at all. The paragraph that you had trouble with lists a series of logical fallacies that many here, if not most, are familiar with because, as critical thinkers, we have made it a point to learn about logical fallacies. (And some us just happen to like Latin :))

Rather than viewing it as intellectual snobbery (a negative), why not do a little bit of research on logical fallacies and chalk it up to learning something new today (a positive)? To me, learning something new is nearly always a good thing.

This is a public forum where people are invited to share their views and express them in any way they see fit. If JREF contributors lack the wherewithal to frame their argument in terms you find acceptable, then perhaps you should suggest the administrators vet new registrants rather than have them satisfy your 'argumentometer' with each new thread submission.

Of course, people are free to express themselves as they see fit. However, there is nothing wrong with wanting people to frame their arguments in a manner that is actually conducive to debate. There is also nothing wrong with helping people to frame their arguments in a fashion that makes the discussion fruitful.

I did not take from Architect's post that he is somehow trying to stifle debate. To the contrary, I took from his post that he is hoping to stimulate debate, real debate, rather than merely word salad on a computer monitor that lacks any structure, argument, premises, inference, conclusion, etc.

Just my $0.02, of course.

[coughymachine]

I disagree; surely the best way to deal with the issue is to provide guidance and a framework by which all contributors can best put their arguments forward?

Well, we can agree to disagree.

This is a public forum. If contributors fail to express themselves in manner you find acceptable, either ask for carification or else ignore them.

[Nick227]

You've put your finger on an interesting point, although not necessarily one germaine to this thread. People do, on the whole, seek affirmation of their views and one of the most important things in science - or legal situations - is trying to set such issues to one side.


Yes, I think it's quite a journey to come to the point where you are actually simply genuinely interested in establishing the truth.


One fellow on LCF was pursuing an argument about redundancy in steel framed structures and collapse patterns due to isolated failure. I think it's probably wrong, but it needs to be looked at. Unfortunately I was banned for being too polite and never yet managed to hear his full argument.


Being too polite! Really? I'm intrigued.


At the end of the day scepticism is about looking at ideas, assessing the evidence, and reaching a view. The trouble with many of the arguments presented here is that the OP doesn't post enough of an idea - or argument, if you will - to make it worthwhile.

I'd always understood that skepticism was looking at ideas with a prejudiced mindset, a predisposition to not believing. Not saying this is good nor bad, just what I'd always understood. Is this not the case?

Nick

[T.A.M.]

Intellectual snobbery is itself a falsehood. Aptitude may vary, but just as one has the ability to increase one's wealth, one can always learn, and educate themselves.

Calling it intellectual snobbery seems like a bit of a cop out because, you did in fact, have to go look up the terms.

Incidently, when I first came here, i had to look many of those same terms up, and I have 11 years of formal university education beyond highschool.

TAM:)

[coughymachine]

Rather than viewing it as intellectual snobbery (a negative), why not do a little bit of research on logical fallacies and chalk it up to learning something new today (a positive)? To me, learning something new is nearly always a good thing.

Firstly, perception is reality. It was intellectual snobbery to me even if it wasn't to you.

Secondly, having read my post, you must have noticed that I did indeed look up the terms before replying.

Of course, people are free to express themselves as they see fit. However, there is nothing wrong with wanting people to frame their arguments in a manner that is actually conducive to debate. There is also nothing wrong with helping people to frame their arguments in a fashion that makes the discussion fruitful.

Then, as I suggested in another reply a short while ago, if contributors have difficulty expressing themselves, either ask for clarification or else ignore them. Both approaches will encourage posters to modify their behaviour over time.

[Architect]

Well, we can agree to disagree.

This is a public forum. If contributors fail to express themselves in manner you find acceptable, either ask for carification or else ignore them.

You seem to have missed the section of my post where I asked for your ideas.

[coughymachine]

Calling it intellectual snobbery seems like a bit of a cop out because, you did in fact, have to go look up the terms.

It's funny that you guys appears to be so sensitive over this accusation.

My view is this. The OP began by criticising contributors that didn't structure their arguments according to his standards. He then described a framework, which those contributors were self-evidiently not familiar with, and did so in a language they were unlikely to understand.

When people try to differentiate themselves in this way, it smacks to me of intellectual snobbery. The fact that I have since looked up those terms and understand them does not mean I'm likely to be dropping them into my day-to-day conversations any time soon.

[coughymachine]

You seem to have missed the section of my post where I asked for your ideas.

You seem to have missed the fact that I've offered them on two occasions.

If you and/or others feel that a contributor has failed to express their side of the debate properly, then ask for clarification and, if that fails, simply ignore them.

Alternatively, if you don't have the patience, then have new registrants fill in a debating skills questionnaire when they sign up to the forum.

[Architect]

Being too polite! Really? I'm intrigued.



Apparently they thought it suspicious.

I'd always understood that skepticism was looking at ideas with a prejudiced mindset, a predisposition to not believing. Not saying this is good nor bad, just what I'd always understood. Is this not the case?

My understanding is that scepticism is critical investigation or inquiry, as opposed to the positive assumption or assertion of certain principles. I've got a copy of Sagan's Demon Haunted World somewhere, give me a bit to find it and I'll give you a better definition....

[Architect]

My view is this. The OP began by criticising contributors that didn't structure their arguments according to his standards. He then described a framework, which those contributors were self-evidiently not familiar with, and did so in a language they were unlikely to understand.


They're not my standards; they're the accepted way in which theories and hypotheses are presented for testeing, by argument or otherwise. They're a part - whether implicit or explicit - of the higher education system that most of us here have gone through. For those who work in science, or in law, they're a fundamental tool.

Your answer seems to be that we ask for clarification and if not forthcoming we turn for the "off" switch. With respect, that's not a solution. It does nothing to improve the quality of debate or improve the quality of the the arguments which the CTists (in particular, but not exclusively) post.

At the end of the day you have to ask yourself what you want; a shouting match, or an informed discussion/argument. This isn't the playground, and it's certainly not the courtroom, but I wouldn't have thought anyone would have trouble benchmarking to the standards of the classroom!

[Disbelief]

This is a public forum. If contributors fail to express themselves in manner you find acceptable, either ask for carification or else ignore them.

So, those are our only options? How does ignoring someone stimulate debate? Asking for clarification does not work with some of the people who post here either. Take a look at the thread by Terral and you may understand.

There are some people who you can not debate - CTists and debunkers - so we just throw them to the curb? Never try and engage them? While I have seen the piling on, I have also seen people try and truly engage someone in a debate only to have the same shiftiness happen.

[JimBenArm]

Hey, Mr. coughymachine, can you help a poor, dumb high school grad out here? Why is having to look up words you don't know intellectual snobbery instead of a learning opportunity? Is it because learning is bad? Or just too darn much work for the intellectually challenged?
Guess I just haven't known that they've been looking down on me all this time. >sob<

[coughymachine]

Hey, Mr. coughymachine, can you help a poor, dumb high school grad out here? Why is having to look up words you don't know intellectual snobbery instead of a learning opportunity? Is it because learning is bad? Or just too darn much work for the intellectually challenged?
Guess I just haven't known that they've been looking down on me all this time. >sob<

Read reply #33.

[Architect]

Let's follow your suggestion through to it's logical conclusion, Coughy. Everyone ignoring everyone else. A big shouting match. No progress. No discourse.

Is there anything more productive you'd like to bring to the table?

[GreNME]

I think it is great to coddle the liars of the 9/11 truth movement. But my efforts will be limited to letting you do it.
The point is the level of their arguments do not go past hearsay and lies. If they had real facts we would see members of 9/11 truth with Pulitzer Prizes. Alas, they are fact less and pass on the lies of 9/11 truth.

Well, at least you have a balanced view on things.

I think I agree with Architect's suggestion that we hold everyone to higher standards. It could very well make the discourse here more productive.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Accusations of "intellectual snobbery" are nothing more than attacks against the person (argumentum ad hominem abusive). Such accusations are not relevant to the matter being discussed and do not constitute a valid criticism of the OP.

This is especially true because, and correct me if I am mistaken on this Architect, the intent of the OP was to highlight the shortcomings of a number of arguments presented here and discuss the quality of those arguments from a framework of formal argumentation. Given that, it makes perfect sense that the criticisms would be expressed in a formal manner.

[Drudgewire]

I think I agree with Architect's suggestion that we hold everyone to higher standards.
Can I still say "poopy?" :confused:

[coughymachine]

They're not my standards; they're the accepted way in which theories and hypotheses are presented for testeing, by argument or otherwise.

Apparently not for everyone, otherwise there would be no need to spell it out to people.

They're a part - whether implicit or explicit - of the higher education system that most of us here have gone through. For those who work in science, or in law, they're a fundamental tool.

Maybe so, but everybody is entitled to express an opinion, including those who haven't had the benefit of higher education and/or don't work in science or in law.

Your answer seems to be that we ask for clarification and if not forthcoming we turn for the "off" switch. With respect, that's not a solution. It does nothing to improve the quality of debate or improve the quality of the the arguments which the CTists (in particular, but not exclusively) post.

I disagree. If you ask for clarification and get it, the quality of the debate has improved. If it doesn't and you 'turn for the "off" switch', then you cut out the crap and improve the quality of the debate by default.

If, on the other hand, you shove some debating skills template in fornt of contributors and insist they fill in all the boxes, you'll put people off. If that's ultimately what you want, then I don't see what your problem is with doing it in the way I've suggested.

At the end of the day you have to ask yourself what you want; a shouting match, or an informed discussion/argument. This isn't the playground, and it's certainly not the courtroom, but I wouldn't have thought anyone would have trouble benchmarking to the standards of the classroom!

I have asked myself what I want, which is why I've given the opinions I have. They just differ from yours, that's all.

[JimBenArm]

Read reply #33.
I did. So, a guy uses words that you are unfamiliar with. This, in your view, is an attempt to separate himself as somehow superior. Funny. Seems to me it's more like you projecting your own insecurities onto the other person. If there was anyone here who should feel intellectual snobbery, it would be me, since I probably have less formal education than most posters on this board. Yet, I don't. I learn something daily, by keeping an attitude that's willing to listen and learn, instead of feeling like I'm being slighted because I'm intellectually lazy.
But, of course I could be wrong. Just you haven't proven it yet, by any stretch.

[coughymachine]

Everyone ignoring everyone else.

How can you extrapolate my suggestions and end up here?

[coughymachine]

Accusations of "intellectual snobbery" are nothing more than attacks against the person (argumentum ad hominem abusive).

Okay.

Such accusations are not relevant to the matter being discussed and do not constitute a valid criticism of the OP.

When the OP asks what people think of his suggestion and I reply that it smacks to me of intellectual snobbery, then how exactly is that not relevant?

[DavidJames]

Okay.



When the OP asks what people think of his suggestion and I reply that it smacks to me of intellectual snobbery, then how exactly is that not relevant?Clearly you didn't understand the quote to which you responded "Okay".

[coughymachine]

Just you haven't proven it yet, by any stretch.

What exactly do you think I feel I need to prove to you? I expressed my view about the OP's suggestion. If you see it differently, I can live with it.

[Architect]

This is especially true because, and correct me if I am mistaken on this Architect, the intent of the OP was to highlight the shortcomings of a number of arguments presented here and discuss the quality of those arguments from a framework of formal argumentation. Given that, it makes perfect sense that the criticisms would be expressed in a formal manner.

It would be fairer to say that I was concerned about the presentation of arguments, inasmuch as a failure to put the case cogently meant that the poster's effort was often set at naught or might mask an otherwise worthy point.

[Architect]

Apparently not for everyone, otherwise there would be no need to spell it out to people.

I'm still waiting for you to come up with a workable alternative, and mildly fascinated to see what you have that is better than the accepted, tried & tested, successful norm.

Maybe so, but everybody is entitled to express an opinion, including those who haven't had the benefit of higher education and/or don't work in science or in law.

Actually, you've just proven a point. No-one said that higher education was necessary to debate a point, merely that the current way of doing so was not conducive to putting the posters point across.

I disagree. If you ask for clarification and get it, the quality of the debate has improved. If it doesn't and you 'turn for the "off" switch', then you cut out the crap and improve the quality of the debate by default.

No, if you hit the "off" switch then the original poster continues unabashed.

If, on the other hand, you shove some debating skills template in fornt of contributors and insist they fill in all the boxes, you'll put people off. If that's ultimately what you want, then I don't see what your problem is with doing it in the way I've suggested

I think you'll find that no-one actually suggested that.

I have asked myself what I want, which is why I've given the opinions I have. They just differ from yours, that's all.

Indeed you have.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Okay.



When the OP asks what people think of his suggestion and I reply that it smacks to me of intellectual snobbery, then how exactly is that not relevant?
Responding to The purpose of this thread is to post a fairly simple question; if we accept that the quality of CT posting/argument is diminishing then would it be appropriate for us to include, as a sticky (for example) a set of clear and concise guidelines for all posters (but especially the Truth Movement) setting out minimum presentational and evidential standards?
With I think it smacks of intellectual snobbery, as does the way the OP is worded. is not meaningful, therefore, not relevant. The remainder of the post where you make that statement is nothing more than a strawman argument and, therefore, equally moot.

[coughymachine]

Clearly you didn't understand the quote to which you responded "Okay".

Alternatively, you didn't understand that I was simply being frank and didn't want to start splitting hairs.

I argued that, in my view, the OP's suggestion smacked of intellectual snobbery. In other words, it was the product of intellectual snobbery. If Arkan_Wolfshade wants to define my comment as an attack against the person, I'm not going to argue.

But using Arkan_Wolfshade's logic, virtually all forms of debate/argument are attacks against the person to a greater or lesser extent, since participants constantly question each other's judgement. If you question someone's ability to reason, it's no less of a personal 'attack' than accusing someone else of intellectual snobbery.

[Architect]

Still awaiting your workable alternative.

Unless, of course, you already have me on ignore. Or maybe I should put you on ignore? Or maybe everyone should put everyone else on ignore!!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Alternatively, you didn't understand that I was simply being frank and didn't want to start splitting hairs.

I argued that, in my view, the OP's suggestion smacked of intellectual snobbery. In other words, it was the product of intellectual snobbery. If Arkan_Wolfshade wants to define my comment as an attack against the person, I'm not going to argue.
That is patently false. The phrase "intellectual snobbery" has no value with regards to providing a valid criticism of the OP. It is functionally no different than if you had called the OP "stupid", "assinine", or "doo-doo". It fails to point out a flaw in reasoning or an error of fact.

But using Arkan_Wolfshade's logic, virtually all forms of debate/argument are attacks against the person to a greater or lesser extent, since participants constantly question each other's judgement. If you question someone's ability to reason, it's no less of a personal 'attack' than accusing someone else of intellectual snobbery.
Utterly wrong. The entire purpose of formal logic/debate/argumentation is to remove such logically flawed claims from the discussion and to focus upon the actual premises in question.

[coughymachine]

Responding to
With is not meaningful, therefore, not relevant.

No. Responding to...

Originally Posted by Architect
Back on OP then, what do our resident Truthers actually think of the proposition?

with...

[/quote]I think it smacks of intellectual snobbery, as does the way the OP is worded.[/quote]

Again, how is my response not relevant?

[Architect]

That's not half as interesting as why you're still arguing the point.

Okay, Coughy has made his view known, thanks, and now he's failed to clarify it we can all do as he suggests.

What of the rest of you? It seems to me that at least a couple of you think we should aim for higher standards universally. How can we do that?

[Drudgewire]

What of the rest of you? It seems to me that at least a couple of you think we should aim for higher standards universally. How can we do that?
Get rid of "whip 'em out Wednesdays."

:duck:

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No. Responding to...



with...

I think it smacks of intellectual snobbery, as does the way the OP is worded.[/quote]

Again, how is my response not relevant?[/quote]
It is not meaningful and is, therefore, not relevant. It is an opinion that provides no useful feedback whatsoever. It contains no qualitative or quantative statements to be applied against the OP. You might just as well as responded with, "I like pie" for all the more good your comment makes.

That you also feel the need to emphasize that you were responding to your interpretation of a post that was meant to redirect the discussion back to the OP, and not the OP itself, speaks volumes as well.

[Architect]

I think Coughy is proving one of my points.

If he had said "I'm concerned that an attempt to improve standards might be seen by some as a subtle way of discouraging comment from part of our community, and wish to discuss how any such regime might be run in a way that instead engenders greater debate" then fair enough. If he said "well look at how so-and-so do it" then fair enough.

But instead he's long on problems and gey short on solutions.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

That's not half as interesting as why you're still arguing the point.

Okay, Coughy has made his view known, thanks, and now he's failed to clarify it we can all do as he suggests.

What of the rest of you? It seems to me that at least a couple of you think we should aim for higher standards universally. How can we do that?
Enforce it on ourselves first. If we hold ourselves to a higher standard of discourse than our opponents they will either follow suit, or fall by the wayside.

That being said, such endeavors, while truly noble, just don't pan out on the intarweb. I refer you to Gabe's Internet F'wad Theory for clarification
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19

[coughymachine]

I'm still waiting for you to come up with a workable alternative, and mildly fascinated to see what you have that is better than the accepted, tried & tested, successful norm.

It's not the tried and tested norm for online forums such as this one. If it was, then you'd have something along the lines of your original suggestion already in place. The fact that this is a public forum where contributions are invited from anyone prepared to share them, regardless of location, views, intelligence or understanding of standard debating disciplines, means that the norms that work so well in structured environments such as science and law need to be more relaxed.

My alternatives are to do little or no more than you do right now: either seek clarification or ignore. And people still talk with one another just fine, since most don't take it to the nth degree, as you've suggested they might.

Actually, you've just proven a point. No-one said that higher education was necessary to debate a point...

And nor did I.

No, if you hit the "off" switch then the original poster continues unabashed.

Oh yeah? I very much doubt they would. But even if they did, so what?

I think you'll find that no-one actually suggested that.

Of course I was exaggerating, but I think you know what I meant.

[coughymachine]

That is patently false.

No, it's not. I agreed that my response constituted a personal attack.

Utterly wrong. The entire purpose of formal logic/debate/argumentation is to remove such logically flawed claims from the discussion and to focus upon the actual premises in question.

I disagree again. I agree with the purpose of debate, but when you challenge someone else's ability to reason, or question their judgement, it's as much a personal attack as calling someone an intellectual snob.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

. . .
I disagree again. I agree with the purpose of debate, but when you challenge someone else's ability to reason, or question their judgement, it's as much a personal attack as calling someone an intellectual snob.
Reread my post. The purpose of formal debate/logic/etc is to remove these things, including removing challenging someone elses ability to reason or question their judgement. That said, pointing out a logical fallacy in someones argument or claim is not challenging their ability to reason or questioning their judgement. Do not confuse the two.

[Architect]

No, I would only be an intellectual snob if I suggested that your failure to recognise basic standards for debate and argument made you an intellectual slob. What I've actually done is highlight a perceived problem that some (many?) posters seem to encounter in the presentation of their case and suggest that we try to solve it.

Whereas you've not actually brought any level of meaninful analysis to the table.

Gee, ta.

[GreNME]

Can I still say "poopy?" :confused:

I hope so. I think we're all mature enough to handle that. OMFGhejustsaidpoopy

----

What of the rest of you? It seems to me that at least a couple of you think we should aim for higher standards universally. How can we do that?

I think a good start could be considering that when someone comes in and starts talking about points that have long since been covered, more of a "show them where and how the points have been covered" takes place instead of a "complain it's been done and STFU."

Just sayin...

[beachnut]

Well, at least you have a balanced view on things.

I think I agree with Architect's suggestion that we hold everyone to higher standards. It could very well make the discourse here more productive.
Balanced? Show me a fact the truth movement has to support the 9/11 truth movement conclusions. Just one.

I agree too, the truth movement needs to step up and raise the bar and stop telling lies. They need to stand up to higher standards. I agree, they don't. Do you think they will stop telling lies?

The truth movement thinks this is like a debate on politics, where there are some sides and issues; they were wrong. They continue to bring up false information, and display zero research before the regurgitate the same old junk; six years and still no improvement.

[JimBenArm]

I hope so. I think we're all mature enough to handle that. OMFGhejustsaidpoopy

----



I think a good start could be considering that when someone comes in and starts talking about points that have long since been covered, more of a "show them where and how the points have been covered" takes place instead of a "complain it's been done and STFU."

Just sayin...
Aww. But where's the fun in that? Can't I just be obnoxious, and make fun of the noobs?
Geez, next I'll have to wear pants when company comes...

[Hokulele]

I realize Zen's ideas on conspiracy theories may seem completely wrong and worth correcting, but a little patience goes a long way. He's been reasonable with me when I've been reasonable with him.


I disagree here. In my first "conversation" with Zen, I answered one of his questions politely and fairly thoroughly, and he promptly took my words out of context and attempted to use quotes from my post to generate a highly skewed and uncomplimentary view of my opinions. I find this type of practice to be dishonest at best, and to be quite frank, utterly stupid in this type of forum where it is easy enough to go back and check context. I did post a correction, and told him how much his behavior was unappreciated, but never got either a response or an apology. He pulled the same trick again either last night or the night before (I would have to go check the dates on the posts). I assume he will pull the same shenanigans with anything else I post, so I no longer bother responding to him. He is not a good example of a reasonable debater. Links provided upon request.

[GreNME]

I disagree here. In my first "conversation" with Zen, I answered one of his questions politely and fairly thoroughly, and he promptly took my words out of context and attempted to use quotes from my post to generate a highly skewed and uncomplimentary view of my opinions. I find this type of practice to be dishonest at best, and to be quite frank, utterly stupid in this type of forum where it is easy enough to go back and check context. I did post a correction, and told him how much his behavior was unappreciated, but never got either a response or an apology. He pulled the same trick again either last night or the night before (I would have to go check the dates on the posts). I assume he will pull the same shenanigans with anything else I post, so I no longer bother responding to him. He is not a good example of a reasonable debater. Links provided upon request.

I'm not turning this into a debate about the merits of Zen as a poster or his arguments. I used his posts as an example because his name in the username part of the post is usually enough to elicit groans, and it's both not necessary and doesn't establish any high ground in a debate. It does exactly the opposite, actually.

Trust me, I'm no stranger to using a flamethrower. I just don't think it's the right tool in this case.

[Alareth]

My view is this. The OP began by criticising contributors that didn't structure their arguments according to his standards.


I don't see it as him wanting to hold people to his standard, just A standard.

[Hokulele]

I'm not turning this into a debate about the merits of Zen as a poster or his arguments. I used his posts as an example because his name in the username part of the post is usually enough to elicit groans, and it's both not necessary and doesn't establish any high ground in a debate. It does exactly the opposite, actually.

Trust me, I'm no stranger to using a flamethrower. I just don't think it's the right tool in this case.


I am just saying that in my personal experience, your example was not a good one in terms of illustrating your point, that's all.

More on topic, I am not sure what you are referring to when you say "it's both not necessary and doesn't establish any high ground in a debate. It does exactly the opposite, actually." Do you mean the groaning?

[Architect]

Just to give an example of what I would consider to be a good post, here's Oliver's thoughts on CGI/holographic aircraft impacts; I deliberately choose this as a "safe" topic as, as far as I know, no-one here supports the web-ffairy/Holmgren position:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=96161

[T.A.M.]

It's funny that you guys appears to be so sensitive over this accusation.

My view is this. The OP began by criticising contributors that didn't structure their arguments according to his standards. He then described a framework, which those contributors were self-evidiently not familiar with, and did so in a language they were unlikely to understand.

When people try to differentiate themselves in this way, it smacks to me of intellectual snobbery. The fact that I have since looked up those terms and understand them does not mean I'm likely to be dropping them into my day-to-day conversations any time soon.

I only use them here, and rarely so. Most people, WHO ARE NOT SNOBS, would be offended by such an accusation.

In the end though, it is your opinion. Next time just ask someone to dumb it down for you, or do as you did, and look up the terminology.

TAM:)