Jump to content

Welcome to the Freedomain Radio Message Board


Sign In 

Create Account
If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible troll and spam accounts.

If you have supported Freedomain Radio financially and would like immediate access to the message board - or - your donation status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with your information and the situation will be addresses ASAP.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

LISTEN TO A 24/7 STREAM ON THE NEW FREEDOMAIN RADIO iOS APP!


DONATOR ONLY PREMIUM CONTENT - For more information on donator levels click here

67 Philosopher King files - 73 Gold files - 48 Silver files - 51 Bronze files

One new Philosopher King podcast (Marriage Challenges: A Couple Conversation) and one new Silver podcast (Innocent Until Proven Guilty) have been added to the donator section.


If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with the relevant information and it will be corrected as soon as possible.


Photo

Importance of solid arguments; reasons.


  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1
bake

bake
  • 53 posts

I believe there is some importance in using good arguments. Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that you have a correct and important conclusion, which you want to share with other people. Some will refuse to believe it. Some will believe it regardless of how poor the argument is. Some can go either way, for a variety of reasons (the quality of the argument is one reason, but not the only one). Poor arguments also make life unnecessarily harder for the defender of an idea, and easier for those who want to disagree with it. By using better arguments, more people can be convinced, and people trying to honestly assess ideas on their merits will be more likely to end up agreeing with a correct idea. A person or community can choose not to care about the quality of arguments. I don't want to believe this of the FDR community (and I've seen some posts which indicate to me that some people here do care), but it is a valid choice: much of the opposition to arguments is based on reactions to their conclusions rather than the validity of the argument, and the necessarily limited time and attention of a community can be legitimately directed at goals other than improving the arguments. It's also possible to choose to improve arguments when valid criticisms are leveled at them. By doing so, everyone who wants to present the argument is put on stronger ground. Also, while it is inevitable that someone who engages in a lot of discussion will at least occasionally use an incorrect argument he or she believes to be valid, some people (including myself) are not comfortable using arguments they know are wrong, no matter how strongly they believe in the conclusion. My goal, in my criticism of some of the logic in RTR, is not to prove Stef's conclusions wrong. He's very insightful, and often right - frankly, if I thought his conclusions were mainly wrong, I wouldn't care at all that some of his proofs also are. Similarly, given that Stef appears to care about logic (I can't imagine someone trying to write "A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics" or "The Logic of Love" without doing so), I came to this forum with the belief that I would be dealing with people who care about logic and the quality of arguments: without that belief, I also would not have chosen to spend time on this discussion. Given some of the comments in the main "Logical flaws in RTR" thread, I think this bears emphasizing: my purpose here is to see if people are willing to accept that some parts of RTR are logically unsound and find alternatives which are not. It's not to say that the conclusions are wrong - that's a different issue. It certainly is not to attack RTR or Stef, as I'm doing my best to make clear; I regret that some people seem to have interpreted it that way, and am slightly disturbed by the impression that I get from a few that any suggestion that RTR contains even minor flaws is disturbing to them - but while I regret this, I don't see a way to avoid it and still raise the issue I joined this forum to discuss. I hope this post clarifies where I'm coming from, and why I've chosen to make these posts. I would also like if it were to provide any comfort to those who have been disturbed.


  • 0

#2
inside my head

inside my head
  • 1005 posts

"[font=" 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 13px; color: #333333"]much of the opposition to arguments is based on reactions to their conclusions rather than the validity of the argument"[/font]

Absolutely, absolutely! People sometimes react emotionally to conclusions they perceive and dislike. I can say this from my own experience. Sometimes people will oppose the conclusion, even if it means being irrational. I like that you mentioned that.

And for that reason alone - Stef said something about you and some other people not using RTR to when critiquing RTR, and I agree:

It's an interesting thread, and it is always a dilemma for me when people critique some or other detail in RTR without actually applying the process of RTR.../BOARD/emoticons/emotion-1.gif (it's similar to when people dismiss UPB while using UPB)

From my observations, the thread started out with a long list of "what's wrong with RTR" and on which pages. I think it might have gone differently if people came in a bit more with their hearts on their sleeves, and eyes wide open. 

I wonder if maybe it's due to a lack of trust [:P]


  • 0

#3
bake

bake
  • 53 posts

"[font="'Trebuchet MS';font-size:13px;color:#333333"]much of the opposition to arguments is based on reactions to their conclusions rather than the validity of the argument"[/font]

Absolutely, absolutely! People sometimes react emotionally to conclusions they perceive and dislike. I can say this from my own experience. Sometimes people will oppose the conclusion, even if it means being irrational. I like that you mentioned that.

Thank you. For this reason, I've tried to avoid bringing up questions about the conclusions themselves. My intention actually is a discussion about the arguments, although it seems I have at least partially failed at conveying this.

And for that reason alone - Stef said something about you and some other people not using RTR to when critiquing RTR, and I agree:

It's an interesting thread, and it is always a dilemma for me when people critique some or other detail in RTR without actually applying the process of RTR.../BOARD/emoticons/emotion-1.gif (it's similar to when people dismiss UPB while using UPB)

From my observations, the thread started out with a long list of "what's wrong with RTR" and on which pages. I think it might have gone differently if people came in a bit more with their hearts on their sleeves, and eyes wide open.

I came in with the perspective of a stranger to this community, someone who has spent a lot of time with logic over the last decade, and someone who was fulfilling a commitment to a friend, to point out what had bothered me while reading the book.

I freely admitted that I'm new to RTR, and have asked about using it better. If it's a prerequisite in this community to have mastered its interaction style before raising (what I perceive to be) unrelated issues, it was one I was unaware of - I am trying, but it's not something I can master in a week. I apologize that my presentation and perceived mode of interaction seem to have been problematic, and welcome suggestions on what could be better.

 

 

I wonder if maybe it's due to a lack of trust /BOARD/emoticons/emotion-4.gif

What do you mean?

 


  • 0