TromboneChat

Teehehehee

TAM 2014 - Panel: Can Rationality Be Taught?

Excellent video, Andrew--thanks!
 
I think that one's probably more widely effective at explaining The Real Issue™ than the Peter Boghossian video I posted a few back.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Sep 14, 2014, 03:23PMExcellent video, Andrew--thanks!
 
I think that one's probably more widely effective at explaining The Real Issue™ than the Peter Boghossian video I posted a few back.

You're welcome. 

I think that in general the other panelists were happy to let Julia Galef do as much of the talking as she did - she was speaking quite well, and I didn't mind either due to my inherent male bias toward good looking women. Quite a visual contrast with Dan Dennett sitting the next seat over.

Speaking of Daniel Dennett, I noticed that he's doing work on how to build a computer composed of neuron-like parts, where each one is different (amongst other properties). That sounds like a really interesting computer-science project.

I rarely watch a video on line, I can read so much faster, but I did this time.

It struck me that none of the participants were confident about the possibility of teaching rationality or even critical thinking (beyond specific domains). 

But there was an almost offhand remark that I think needs to be emphasized.  If the local social climate rewards people who admit error and correct themselves, rationality goes way up.  Unfortunately most of the community segments we belong to punish this, and reward those who stick to their position no matter how wrong.

Quote from: timothy42b on Sep 15, 2014, 08:08AMI rarely watch a video on line, I can read so much faster, but I did this time.
 
It struck me that none of the participants were confident about the possibility of teaching rationality or even critical thinking (beyond specific domains). 
 
But there was an almost offhand remark that I think needs to be emphasized.  If the local social climate rewards people who admit error and correct themselves, rationality goes way up.  Unfortunately most of the community segments we belong to punish this, and reward those who stick to their position no matter how wrong.
Yup ... and very closely related, I recall explicitly though not formally being taught that to be a good, responsible citizen, I had to have an opinion (about all sorts of things, presumably it was mainly about current sociopolitical events). That always struck as as odd and fundamentally wrong--flat out bypassing The Real Issue™ and such.

Quote from: timothy42b on Sep 15, 2014, 08:08AM
It struck me that none of the participants were confident about the possibility of teaching rationality or even critical thinking (beyond specific domains). 


A rational response to the question posed? 

Another good one I got from the Project Reason Forum:
 
Common Mythconceptions: World's Most Contagious Falsehoods

A lot of our critical thinking is front-loaded--done before we ever face whatever issue we're trying (or not) to think critically about. So we set ourselves up for success or failure (or whatever) through our investments--our biases and what comes with them. It's worth a great deal, I would argue, to consider very carefully what, exactly, we choose to invest in and why, to continually re-evaluate those decisions, and to adjust accordingly. The problem is that I don't think this comes naturally any more than critical thinking does, and many seem to not only have little to no interest, but are disinclined, even hostile to the idear.
 
So what's up with that, and how might we encourage people to recognize and accept the benefits of simply being mindful about such things? Should we?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Oct 21, 2014, 10:58AMA lot of our critical thinking is front-loaded--done before we ever face whatever issue we're trying (or not) to think critically about. So we set ourselves up for success or failure (or whatever) through our investments--our biases and what comes with them. It's worth a great deal, I would argue, to consider very carefully what, exactly, we choose to invest in and why, to continually re-evaluate those decisions, and to adjust accordingly. The problem is that I don't think this comes naturally any more than critical thinking does, and many seem to not only have little to no interest, but are disinclined, even hostile to the idear.
 
So what's up with that, and how might we encourage people to recognize and accept the benefits of simply being mindful about such things? Should we?

Quit hitting your head against the wall trying to help people!  It's all gonna go nook-lee-ar next time the Republicans have both houses of Congress & the White House, so why bother?

Quote from: bhcordova on Oct 27, 2014, 11:23AMQuit hitting your head against the wall trying to help people!  It's all gonna go nook-lee-ar next time the Republicans have both houses of Congress & the White House, so why bother?
Heh ... solid point.

Because this keeps coming up (i.e. why do I care about the ethics of belief/taking honesty seriously and such, though my critics also demonstrate a rather strong bias against the issue being considered what it actually is and would never characterize it that way). Clifford's a bit melodramatic in his language, but that's a common characteristic of the writing from that era. One of my all time favorite quotes is his one line summation near the end.
 
This is another of the excellent posts from The Project Reason Forum.
 
 
 
----------   ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------
 
U-Toob audio clip:

 
William K. Clifford on The Real Issue™

The Ethics of Belief

by William K. Clifford
Originally published in Contemporary Review, 1877.
(edited for readability)
 
I. THE DUTY OF INQUIRY
 
A shipowner was about to send to sea an emigrant-ship. He knew that she was old, and not well built at the first; that she had seen many seas and climes, and often had needed repairs. Doubts had been suggested to him that possibly she was not seaworthy. These doubts preyed upon his mind, and made him unhappy; he thought that perhaps he ought to have her thoroughly overhauled and refitted, even though this should put him at great expense. Before the ship sailed, however, he succeeded in overcoming these melancholy reflections. He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms that it was idle to suppose she would not come safely home from this trip also. He would put his trust in Providence, which could hardly fail to protect all these unhappy families that were leaving their fatherland to seek for better times elsewhere. He would dismiss from his mind all ungenerous suspicions about the honesty of builders and contractors. In such ways he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy; he watched her departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance-money when she went down in mid-ocean and told no tales.
 
What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those families. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him. He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts. And although in the end he may have felt so sure about it that he could not think otherwise, yet inasmuch as he had knowingly and willingly worked himself into that frame of mind, he must be held responsible for it.
 
Let us alter the case a little, and suppose that the ship was not unsound after all; that she made her voyage safely, and many others after it. Will that diminish the guilt of her owner? Not one jot. When an action is once done, it is right or wrong for ever; no accidental failure of its good or evil fruits can possibly alter that. The man would not have been innocent, he would only have been not found out. The question of right or wrong has to do with the origin of his belief, not the matter of it; not what it was, but how he got it; not whether it turned out to be true or false, but whether he had a right to believe on such evidence as was before him….

It may be said, however, that ... it is not the belief which is judged to be wrong, but the action following upon it. The shipowner might say, “I am perfectly certain that my ship is sound, but still I feel it my duty to have her examined, before trusting the lives of so many people to her”....

In the first place, let us admit that, so far as it goes, this view of the case is right and necessary; right, because even when a man’s belief is so fixed that he cannot think otherwise, he still has a choice in the action suggested by it, and so cannot escape the duty of investigating on the ground of the strength of his convictions; and necessary, because those who are not yet capable of controlling their feelings and thoughts must have a plain rule dealing with overt acts.”

But this being premised as necessary, it becomes clear that it is not sufficient, and that our previous judgment is required to supplement it. For it is not possible so to sever the belief from the action it suggests as to condemn the one without condemning the other. No man holding a strong belief on one side of a question, or even wishing to hold a belief on one side, can investigate it with such fairness and completeness as if he were really in doubt and unbiased; so that the existence of a belief not founded on fair inquiry unfits a man for the performance of this necessary duty.

Nor is it that truly a belief at all which has not some influence upon the actions of him who holds it. He who truly believes that which prompts him to an action has looked upon the action to lust after it, he has committed it already in his heart. If a belief is not realized immediately in open deeds, it is stored up for the guidance of the future. It goes to make a part of that aggregate of beliefs which is the link between sensation and action at every moment of all our lives, and which is so organized and compacted together that no part of it can be isolated from the rest, but every new addition modifies the structure of the whole. No real belief, however trifling and fragmentary it may seem, is ever truly insignificant; it prepares us to receive more of its like, confirms those which resembled it before, and weakens others; and so gradually it lays a stealthy train in our inmost thoughts, which may someday explode into overt action, and leave its stamp upon our character for ever.

And no one man’s belief is in any case a private matter which concerns himself alone. Our lives are guided by that general conception of the course of things which has been created by society for social purposes. Our words, our phrases, our forms and processes and modes of thought, are common property, fashioned and perfected from age to age; an heirloom which every succeeding generation inherits as a precious deposit and a sacred trust to be handed on to the next one, not unchanged but enlarged and purified, with some clear marks of its proper handiwork. Into this, for good or ill, is woven every belief of every man who has speech of his fellows. A awful privilege, and an awful responsibility, that we should help to create the world in which posterity will live….

[N]o belief held by one man, however seemingly trivial the belief, and however obscure the believer, is ever actually insignificant or without its effect on the fate of mankind…. Belief, that sacred faculty which prompts the decisions of our will, and knits into harmonious working all the compacted energies of our being, is ours not for ourselves but for humanity. It is rightly used on truths which have been established by long experience and waiting toil, and which have stood in the fierce light of free and fearless questioning. Then it helps to bind men together, and to strengthen and direct their common action. It is desecrated when given to unproved and unquestioned statements, for the solace and private pleasure of the believer; to add a tinsel splendour to the plain straight road of our life and display a bright mirage beyond it; or even to drown the common sorrows of our kind by a self-deception which allows them not only to cast down, but also to degrade us. Whoso would deserve well of his fellows in this matter will guard the purity of his beliefs with a very fanaticism of jealous care, lest at any time it should rest on an unworthy object, and catch a stain which can never be wiped away….

It is true that this duty is a hard one, and the doubt which comes out of it is often a very bitter thing. It leaves us bare and powerless where we thought that we were safe and strong. To know all about anything is to know how to deal with it under all circumstances. We feel much happier and more secure when we think we know precisely what to do, no matter what happens, then when we have lost our way and do not know where to turn. And if we have supposed ourselves to know all about anything, and to be capable of doing what is fit in regard to it, we naturally do not like to find that we are really ignorant and powerless, that we have to begin again at the beginning, and try to learn what the thing is and how it is to be dealt with—if indeed anything can be learnt about it. It is the sense of power attached to a sense of knowledge that makes men desirous of believing, and afraid of doubting….

To sum up: it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.

If a man, holding a belief which he was taught in childhood or persuaded of afterwards, keeps down and pushes away any doubts which arise about it in his mind, purposely avoids the reading of books and the company of men that call into question or discuss it, and regards as impious those questions which cannot easily be asked without disturbing it—the life of that man is one long sin against mankind….

“But,” says one, “I am a busy man; I have no time for the long course of study which would be necessary to make me in any degree a competent judge of certain questions, or even able to understand the nature of the arguments.”

Then he should have no time to believe.”

Actually, your critics mostly point out that you are one of the worst violators of your own principals, and the multiple topics where you drone on and on to yourself or the many more topic where you make up fake terms and continuously spread them around without any real care, are prime examples of your own stubborn resistance against your ideals.

The better question for you would probably be if something seems so relevant and important, how to address in a way that garners the attention and consideration you think it deserves. Watching one attempt fail and just doing it again and again in hopes it might work better later is the exact opposite of critical thinking.

Shoot, I can garner more attention in one instance of mocking you in your own thread then you can get in a dozen comics and a dozen more links. If that doesn't tell you something, it's because you have your fingers in your ears shouting "lalalalalala I'm not listening! lalalalalala!"

Quote from: B0B on Oct 29, 2014, 10:52AMActually, your critics mostly point out that you are one of the worst violators of your own principals ...
Fair enough.
 
I wrote that how I see it, and I stand by what I wrote (intentionally not too specific because I'm biased, so I need to stay clear of forming any overly specific or strong opinions on the matter), but my critics (fan club) would characterize it differently ... which is how I noted that, but it's good to have it from the horse's mouth, as the cool kids say these days.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Oct 29, 2014, 11:52AMI wrote that how I see it, and I stand by what I wrote...Which is about as blatant as you can get per your own lack of critical thinking.

Also why you're mostly a joke.

Verbal attacks of members of the forum can incur banishment from the forum.

Quote from: bhcordova on Oct 29, 2014, 02:50PMVerbal attacks of members of the forum can incur banishment from the forum.
Good grief! 
I guess verbal attacks below the radar are on though. 

Quote from: ronkny on Oct 29, 2014, 10:13PMGood grief! 
I guess verbal attacks below the radar are on though.
If you feel attacked by anything I've posted in a good while, you're far too fragile.
 
You can't imagine or perceive something into actual existence.
 
That kind of thinking is precisely what the Clifford essay (and my agenda) are all about at its core (and strangely enough it's The Singular Definitive Characteristic for the members of my fan club--demonstrating That Kind of Thinking is how one earns the distinction ... well, also the perverse fixation on my posts as a result).

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Oct 30, 2014, 04:43AM Quote from: ronkny on Oct 29, 2014, 10:13PMI guess verbal attacks below the radar are on though. 
If you feel attacked by anything I've posted in a good while, you're far too fragile.

Ronky is probably talking about the indirect attacks you love so dearly, such as above. Rather then say "you're stupid" you say "anyone who believes [the opposing position that has been advocated for] is stupid". Pretty much like the above. Rather then "you're fragile", it's "anyone who holds the position I think you're holding right now is far too fragile."


Why one is called ad hominems yet the other is considered skirting the rules, I guess only Billy and RHM know. 


Either way, the continued use of such ploys only further undermines your "efforts" at getting people to care about your whole critical thinking issue. Anyone with a bit of thought can tell you that insults are about the best way to kill a thoughtful disagreement. But again, that requires "a bit of thought"...

Quote from: B0B on Oct 30, 2014, 10:11AMIf you feel attacked by anything I've posted in a good while, you're far too fragile.


Ronky is probably talking about the indirect attacks you love so dearly, such as above. Rather then say "you're stupid" you say "anyone who believes [the opposing position that has been advocated for] is stupid". Pretty much like the above. Rather then "you're fragile", it's "anyone who holds the position I think you're holding right now is far too fragile."


Why one is called ad hominems yet the other is considered skirting the rules, I guess only Billy and RHM know. 


Either way, the continued use of such ploys only further undermines your "efforts" at getting people to care about your whole critical thinking issue. Anyone with a bit of thought can tell you that insults are about the best way to kill a thoughtful disagreement. But again, that requires "a bit of thought"...
I call them "under the radar" attacks.  He gets away with them and the mods have admittedly stated that "he has not broken the roles but he is close".  I tend to be more direct.  It's my nature.  So I don't follow the cowardly route "under the radar".  And therefore I get banned on pp.  bvb will continue to post his nonsense because he is allowed to attack "below the radar".  However, if one were really honest, his below the radar attacks are really not that stealthy.  They're pretty blantant violations of TOU.

No. They're actually pretty much just perceiving attacks into existence in your own minds--choosing to be offended. Partly it's the mindset that certain viewpoints on certain issues are personal attacks rather than viewpoints on issues.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Oct 30, 2014, 04:45PMNo. They're actually pretty much just perceiving attacks into existence in your own minds--choosing to be offended. Partly it's the mindset that certain viewpoints on certain issues are personal attacks rather than viewpoints on issues.
No.  You just fooled them.  I could quote your attacks if you like.  They go way back.

Generally that's just called passive-aggressive but whatever... 

Quote from: ronkny on Oct 30, 2014, 05:28PMNo.  You just fooled them.  I could quote your attacks if you like.  They go way back.
By all means. Provide links so that anyone actually interested, for some reason, can go back and look at what provoked any actual attacks (if you can even find any). It would be interesting to see when the last actual attack happened and what provoked it. I suspect, though, what you'll actually find and post are a lot of things you take as offensive that aren't attacks at all. Could be educational--or at least it could offer some educational information for those inclined to take advantage.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Oct 31, 2014, 10:23AM
By all means. Provide links so that anyone actually interested, for some reason, can go back and look at what provoked any actual attacks (if you can even find any). It would be interesting to see when the last actual attack happened and what provoked it. I suspect, though, what you'll actually find and post are a lot of things you take as offensive that aren't attacks at all. Could be educational--or at least it could offer some educational information for those inclined to take advantage.
I will.
And by the way, you obviously don't take honesty seriously.  Passive aggressive taunts, intentionally missing your intended target are a very cowardly way to have a conversation.  In real life, as opposed to the comfort of you living room durfing the net,  its like mumbling under your breath something you only want your posse to hear because you know dam well if your intended target heard it, he'd kick your ass.  That's cowardly and dishonest

Quote from: ronkny on Oct 31, 2014, 11:00AMI will.
And by the way, you obviously don't take honesty seriously.  Passive aggressive taunts, intentionally missing your intended target are a very cowardly way to have a conversation.  In real life, as opposed to the comfort of you living room durfing the net,  its like mumbling under your breath something you only want your posse to hear because you know dam well if your intended target heard it, he'd kick your ass.  That's cowardly and dishonest
You can't just presume or even perceive these things into existence.
 
You really need to learn that one, and what the implications are.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Oct 31, 2014, 11:20AM
You can't just presume or even perceive these things into existence.
 
You really need to learn that one, and what the implications are.
blatant dishonesty or just plain narcissism.

Quote from: ronkny on Oct 31, 2014, 11:46AMQuote from: Baron von Bone on Oct 31, 2014, 11:20AMQuote from: ronkny on Oct 31, 2014, 11:00AMI will.
And by the way, you obviously don't take honesty seriously.  Passive aggressive taunts, intentionally missing your intended target are a very cowardly way to have a conversation.  In real life, as opposed to the comfort of you living room durfing the net,  its like mumbling under your breath something you only want your posse to hear because you know dam well if your intended target heard it, he'd kick your ass.  That's cowardly and dishonest You can't just presume or even perceive these things into existence.
 
You really need to learn that one, and what the implications are.blatant dishonesty or just plain narcissism.
Looks like serious presumption-based reading issues, apparently due to intense bias.
 
IOW, presuming an offense/attack into existence.
 
I don't doubt that my assessment of what's going on behind the scenes with you can be offensive, but if my take is accurate that's just a consequence of being such a way that makes an accurate description unwelcome and uncomfortable. But just because a given assessment makes the subject unhappy doesn't mean it's not valid or warranted or sound. You take offense (a lot), but you never seem to actually consider any potential merit or connection to the flak you draw, and not just from me. This is where intellectual courage comes in. Rather than just presuming those who criticize you are wrong and malicious and all that, maybe see if there's something to what they're on about. Even if you disagree with their take, you could at least deal with them from a position of understanding rather than pure presumption (and anger and all that).

Critical thinking says this pissing contest serves no real purpose unless you just want to bicker.

If you want an example Byron, you already provided one on this very page. Not that you would ever acknowledge it as such. That would be the passive in the passive aggressive.

But anyway. Have fun. 

Quote from: B0B on Oct 31, 2014, 03:47PMCritical thinking says this pissing contest serves no real purpose unless you just want to bicker. When an antagonist declares that if you respond to antagonists you're not being reasonable, it doesn't carry a lot of weight.
 
Quote from: B0B on Oct 31, 2014, 03:47PMIf you want an example Byron, you already provided one on this very page.You're certain of this alleged attack, no matter what? Any reason you don't want to present it for consideration (back up your claim/perception) along with your accusation? Does responding to an accusation also serve no purpose unless you just want to bicker?
 
Quote from: B0B on Oct 31, 2014, 03:47PMNot that you would ever acknowledge it as such.Poisoning the Well
 
You don't think there's any chance I may disagree with your take on whatever it is I wrote that you see as an attack because it's actually not what you perceive it to be?

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Oct 31, 2014, 04:38PMWhen an antagonist declares that if you respond to antagonists you're not being reasonable, it doesn't carry a lot of weight.See... there goes your poor critical thinking again.

If someone basically says they are baiting you, and you take the bait, it doesn't need a lot of weight. You just proved them right. 

Your inability think critically is rather funny. Thanks for the giggles.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Oct 31, 2014, 04:38PMYou don't think there's any chance I may disagree with your take on whatever it is I wrote that you see as an attack because it's actually not what you perceive it to be?
Wow. That's impressive.

Do you even follow what you are trying to say?

From the Science Matters topic:
 
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Feb 07, 2015, 06:10PMQuote from: B0B on Feb 07, 2015, 05:53PMI'm not talking about what he says he does, but what he actually does.
 
By simply adding in links to proprietary industry research that was positive enough for them to release?Links?
 
No links in the clip, there ... ? If you're talking about other links then you should disclose that, since those links haven't been either posted or even mentioned until now, after you were making arguments based upon them.
 
Quote from: B0B on Feb 07, 2015, 05:53PMThey control patents thus they control research and thus anything they release will be a net positive. Hardly critical. But really, I read the speech he gave to the farmers convention on his change and it was laced with blatantly wrong information that is easily checked. I don't even mean about GMOs, just ag basics in general.Could be.
 
Quote from: B0B on Feb 07, 2015, 05:53PMI haven't ever heard of the guy before. But his initial stance was woefully wrong, and I can't say his change is any better. If you're going to talk about things like hybrid varietals you should at least read up on them before spouting biotech PR lines that hide behind them.If you're right that means he may not be as good an example of the ideal presented as it seems at first glance. It's good to know that you at least understand the principles and recognize their value then, since you recognize what they should produce and what doesn't cut it, at least in principle (whether or not you're a good judge of those things). This is a major positive shift from other exchanges regarding this same topic!
In that spirit it would be cool to go through the series Why I Changed My Mind and see what patterns show up, although that may be better suited for the Critical Thinking topic.

From the Science Matters topic again:
 
Quote from: B0B on Feb 07, 2015, 06:43PMQuick google "Mark Lynas speech to farmers"So why didn't you disclose that when you started making arguments in there based upon it as if those in there should have seen those links?
 
Quote from: B0B on Feb 07, 2015, 06:43PMWow, talking about lack of critical thinking.Only if disagreeing with you = lack of critical thinking ... unless of course you have any actual support rather than just that declaration.
 
Quote from: B0B on Feb 07, 2015, 06:43PMIn related news, a beer industry study found that a property in beer, when fed to mice, increased their cognitive performance. Slight catch is that it would take the average person about 2,000 liters of beer to get that amount. Think that quantity of the rest of stuff in beer would negate those side effects pretty strongly, but industry ad bought articles seem to have left that part out.
 
Scientists have to eat too!Do you still think that's an issue of contention? My response, immediately after you actually disclosed a real argument, was "could be". So why are you still acting as if Mark Lynas' critical thinking credibility is a matter of contention? Do you need me to agree with you rather than to just accept you've provided enough basis to question it in order to accept that your adversarial posture is unwarranted?

Nice to see the usual suspects are alive and kicking!!
Some things change  yet always remain the same
 

Here's a good one:
Test Your Wits with 8 Brainteasers from 'Idiotest'.
 
I missed #2 (the first store front question) and #4 (the kids’ gifts), and I got #6 the hard way (didn’t catch the actual logic behind it, but worked it out in a much more cumbersome but fortuitously kind of parallel way).

Why is Critical Thinking so Hard to Teach?

I just saw Gone Girl yesterday (HBO free weekend). It was an excellent depiction of how these days we're being socialized to choose up sides and start flinging poo at the enemy--to "think" about our fellow humans and current events very non-functionally. It really resonates with Monica Lewinsky's TED Talk.

This looks like a potentially rather useful tool.
 
Fallacy Files: Taxonomy of Logical Fallacies

Ignorance 101
 
The Pursuit of Ignorance

Study Shows That People Find Fake Deepak Chopra Quotations “Profound”

This one is perhaps even more important than the Dig In & Double Down schtick. Both are pretty universal and inherent aspects of The Human Experience™--particularly important to critical thinking and religion, but pretty important things to understand for all kinds of reasons and regarding all kinds of paradigms ... and such.

Another one that should probably be automatically posted in the OP of every topic in PP ...
( ... and some in Chit-Chat--there should be more like maybe 20 or 30 Commandments though):
 
 

Wow, Byron.  I think the Wake Up America thread has broken all 10 of them.  Maybe several times over

I like the list.

Good summary.

I agree with Bruce that all 10 have likely been infringed in the wake Up thread.  The only one to wheich there appears to be any real sensitivity is the first, and it is typically misidentified: the use of disparaging language when referring to an argument (or more typically, lack thereof) is very often misconstrued as ad hominem.  One can legitimately identify an idiotic argument on the basis of mistaken premises and faulty logic resulting in absurd conclusions and be innocent on the charge of character assassination.

That said, if an individual persists in their habit of fronting such arguments, then I believe one is entitled to one's doubts, and might be forgiven for expressing them.

Quote from: growlerbox on Dec 22, 2015, 07:00PMThe only one to wheich there appears to be any real sensitivity is the first, and it is typically misidentified: the use of disparaging language when referring to an argument (or more typically, lack thereof) is very often misconstrued as ad hominem.Actually I'd say the problem is that with a few "participants" in those "discussions" any actual argument against or explanation of their sorry arguments or poorly considered points is going to be met with much histrionic weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. So is any counter point without argument or explanation. So others offer counterarguments and explanations of the problems with their points and arguments, and the discussion immediately devolves into histrionics (much like a band of hooligans randomly flailing about with a soccer ball insisting that they're not only actually playing soccer but defeating all of the actual teams, then claiming to have earned the league championship as their reaction to not being taken seriously). This is unmitigated digging in and doubling down.
 
Quote from: growlerbox on Dec 22, 2015, 07:00PMOne can legitimately identify an idiotic argument on the basis of mistaken premises and faulty logic resulting in absurd conclusions and be innocent on the charge of character assassination.
 
That said, if an individual persists in their habit of fronting such arguments, then I believe one is entitled to one's doubts, and might be forgiven for expressing them.Another problem is that those who are inclined toward behavior that fits these descriptions also tend to utterly fail to appreciate the fact that their reactionary, knee jerk argumentative tactics are insults to the intelligence of others participating in the (attempted) discussion (a problem derived from motivated reasoning, in turn a product of having no real sense of standards or process by which to assess reasoning and argumentation other than pre-existing conclusions). Such insults are incessantly hurled about as a matter of course, and then, as you point out, when reasonable counters and/or explanations of the problems are posted the histrionics commence and are typically protected while the counters are considered the actual problem (much like the "insult" of pointing out a hole in a ship's hull being considered the problem rather than the hole).
 
At least those phenomena do seem to describe what goes on in PP, and that description is at the very least based in credible research. In any case it would be hard to establish a more dysfunctional social and intellectual climate.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Dec 22, 2015, 07:52PMActually I'd say the problem is that with a few "participants" in those "discussions" any actual argument against or explanation of their sorry arguments or poorly considered points is going to be met with much histrionic weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. So is any counter point without argument or explanation. So others offer counterarguments and explanations of the problems with their points and arguments, and the discussion immediately devolves into histrionics (much like a band of hooligans randomly flailing about with a soccer ball insisting that they're not only actually playing soccer but defeating all of the actual teams, then claiming to have earned the league championship as their reaction to not being taken seriously). This is unmitigated digging in and doubling down.
 Another problem is that those who are inclined toward behavior that fits these descriptions also tend to utterly fail to appreciate the fact that their reactionary, knee jerk argumentative tactics are insults to the intelligence of others participating in the (attempted) discussion (a problem derived from motivated reasoning, in turn a product of having no real sense of standards or process by which to assess reasoning and argumentation other than pre-existing conclusions). Such insults are incessantly hurled about as a matter of course, and then, as you point out, when reasonable counters and/or explanations of the problems are posted the histrionics commence and are typically protected while the counters are considered the actual problem (much like the "insult" of pointing out a hole in a ship's hull being considered the problem rather than the hole).
 
At least those phenomena do seem to describe what goes on in PP, and that description is at the very least based in credible research. In any case it would be hard to establish a more dysfunctional social and intellectual climate.
Wow. Are you in denial or what?  Take BH's criticism. You might learn something.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Dec 22, 2015, 07:52PM ... much like a band of hooligans randomly flailing about with a soccer ball insisting that they're not only actually playing soccer but defeating all of the actual teams, then claiming to have earned the league championship as their reaction to not being taken seriously ...
Or a more apt simile for this forum ... it would be like, in a world where music is as important as reasoning is here (i.e. the sense or presumption of the ability to do so effectively--and for many the additional conclusion- rather than process-based presumption that those who disagree with them can't), people who claim to be making music because they can make horns honk and winds screech and they can bang on percussion. Those of us who have played actual music and learned the theory by which it works and such--from amateur hack to top shelf pro--might not take the honkers, screechers and bangers very seriously (because of what we hear--what they produce), but they may not feel good about that and may protest and complain that we can't claim they're not great players and that they're entitled to play in the band just as we are and all that unfortunately familiar kind of nonsense (because ... because ... well, because they're entitled). It's not the pseudo-interest or even the pseudo-reasoning, it's the empty, highly egocentric, arrogant presumption of entitlement. It's like a Harrison Bergeron world infecting many minds that actually gets traction due to a twisted Dunning-Kruger-based form of political correctness where those who are most dependent upon the imposition of "equality" are often its most harsh critics (based upon conclusions/presumptions rather than processes soundness--because there's no real, concrete concept of sound processes, only conclusions presumed right and wise and virtuous and all that kinda shite--all form, vague and amorphous as it is, no substance).

Qualia Soup: Open-Mindedness (a long time favorite of mine)
Qualia Soup: Critical Thinking
Geoff Pynn (Northern Illinois University) - Fundamentals: Introduction to Critical Thinking