|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:54 pm
After getting an invitation to this guild, i decided to browse through it and its older edition. One topic naturally stood out to me, as it was about, me. Now then, i do not want to cause a conflict by talking about this, but i feel it is important to clarify the issue raised. AnarchoManiac So I was in a thread in the ED subforums forums in a debate. Now I won't tell you which stance I had chosen nor what debate it was to prevent biased reasoning from you lot. Well, I posted a source, however, the opponent gave their reason to undermine it. This is what this person said: zz1000zz The validity of a source is not determined by what it says. A simple example would be someone citing the crazy bum on the street corner. Sure, he may be right in what he says, but that does not mean we should listen.Now regard the bold points. "He may be right in what he says, but that does not mean we should listen" I have two reasons to dismiss this argument:~Subjective analysis. The source was not even looked at to even determine its validity. There was no counter argument to the source. It was just stated that "it isn't valid". Through the person's own subjection they compared my source to a crazy street bum and dismissed it. ~Blatant admittance to confirmation bias in the bold points. This person implied "the source may be right in what it says, but that does not mean I should look at it". I then told this person what I just stated and threw in my usual sarcastic remarks that are usually hard to rebut. But here was the reply: zz1000zz This is a perfectly acceptable statement. If you would prefer, i could use the phrase, "Even a broken watch is right twice a day." What - The - ********- ? Do those two analogies even go hand in hand? This person was also appealing to authority as valid counter arguments when they weren't trying dismiss my sources through subjection. Discuss: ===== ~Does the first analogy comply with the second analogy? ~Was the source undermined from the person's own subjection? ~Is "subjective analysis" valid in a scientific debate when determining the validity of a source? ~Was what I stated confirmation bias on the opponent's part? ~Is saying that a source is not valid without looking at it a proper tactic in a debate? ~How bad is appealing to authority when I state the opponent is doing it in a debate, yet they continue? I would not bother bringing this up again, save that the responses in the thread clearly show a lack of understanding. Namely: Lord Setar He's the one that gets thrown out. Unless you can draw valid proof that the given source is invalid, you can't throw it out. Especially not based on your own opinion. Nietzche Not only that, but this is kind of an inverse of Appeal to Authority. It's saying whatever X person says is insufficient because they're not an authority. Actually, it's almost ad hominem. Basically, in a logical argument, what's said is what should be addressed, not who's saying it. Mer Sane Scraps Ugh... the logic there completely eludes me. Really. What. The. ******** class="clear"> Interestingly enough each of these posts came after another post, which gives the correct answer (in an accurate, though perhaps a long-winded way): Shizmatic_Xylophone Actually, that falls under the most common philosophical definition of knowledge: JTB. Justified True Belief. For something to be considered Knowledge, for one thing it has to be a belief. That is you have to actually have it in your head. Secondly, it has to be true. Self-explanatory. And thirdly, it's truth has to be justified. It can't be simply true by chance, you have to have probable justification for the belief. Saying that the sky is blue because cows are made of cheese while technically true, does not count as knowledge because the belief is not fully justified. The justification has nothing to do with the point, and is furthermore, untrue. So he's right on that note. Belief must be justified in it's truth value to count as knowledge. However, saying that something is clearly wrong because the source has said other wrong things is also a fallacy. And it's just bad form to claim that a given justification is insufficient without giving probable cause. It is worth noting i did not fall into the logical fallacy mentioned in the last paragraph there, though Shizmatic_Xylophone would have no way of knowing it. Moving on, the two reasons AnarchoManiac gave to dismiss my response were: AnarchoManiac ~Subjective analysis. The source was not even looked at to even determine its validity. There was no counter argument to the source. It was just stated that "it isn't valid". Through the person's own subjection they compared my source to a crazy street bum and dismissed it. ~Blatant admittance to confirmation bias in the bold points. This person implied "the source may be right in what it says, but that does not mean I should look at it". The second point is clearly an invalid reason in terms of logic. That a source is correct does not mean a source is valid. Despite the obvious truth here, a number of people in that topic seemed to not know it. I hesitate to discuss the first point, but i feel it is worth refuting as well, so people truly understand the situation. In addition, it shows a good example of an invalid source. The source AnarchoManiac offered was supposedly a presentation from a university classroom. Now then, the topic of the presentation is irrelevant, and i see no reason to discuss it here. What is relevant is that nature of the source. When i first clicked on the link, i was taken to an anonymous file transfer site. Now then, to this day i have not looked into the contents of this file. The reason is simple. Whatever information is contained in the source is completely unverifiable. There is no way to verify the original location of the source, nor is there a way to verify the contents have remained unaltered since its creation. The original link, in case anyone is curious.There are many possible flaws that can arise when using a source. This happens to be one i rarely seen mentioned. The truth is, a source of this nature is roughly equivalent to a piece of paper saying, "I am correct." While that piece of paper may be correct, i hope we can all remember... zz1000zz The validity of a source is not determined by what it says. A simple example would be someone citing the crazy bum on the street corner. Sure, he may be right in what he says, but that does not mean we should listen.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:04 pm
(If I had realized there had been a name dropped in the original thread, I would have asked the poster to remove it. I apologize.)
Do you mean "even if a source corresponds with one's view and appears to contain no obvious bias or misinformation, if the source is not trustworthy, it is invalid."? I assume, in the original debate, whatever facts being presented were still contested, right?
The quotes made it appear as though what was being cited was acknowledged by all parties as absolute, correct fact. To connect it to your analogy, if a crazed bum is telling me that E=mc(squared), the information is correct but the source is invalid (not sufficiently authoritative). If the information really is correct, I should have no problem finding a valid source.
Is that close?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:00 pm
Wishbone Returns Again (If I had realized there had been a name dropped in the original thread, I would have asked the poster to remove it. I apologize.) Do you mean "even if a source corresponds with one's view and appears to contain no obvious bias or misinformation, if the source is not trustworthy, it is invalid."? I assume, in the original debate, whatever facts being presented were still contested, right? The quotes made it appear as though what was being cited was acknowledged by all parties as absolute, correct fact. To connect it to your analogy, if a crazed bum is telling me that E=mc(squared), the information is correct but the source is invalid (not sufficiently authoritative). If the information really is correct, I should have no problem finding a valid source. Is that close? As it happens, i do not personally know what the source contains, as i never viewed it. However, AnarchoManiac claimed it was proof of a particular claim with which i disagreed. So yep, you got it right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:16 pm
zz1000zz Wishbone Returns Again (If I had realized there had been a name dropped in the original thread, I would have asked the poster to remove it. I apologize.) Do you mean "even if a source corresponds with one's view and appears to contain no obvious bias or misinformation, if the source is not trustworthy, it is invalid."? I assume, in the original debate, whatever facts being presented were still contested, right? The quotes made it appear as though what was being cited was acknowledged by all parties as absolute, correct fact. To connect it to your analogy, if a crazed bum is telling me that E=mc(squared), the information is correct but the source is invalid (not sufficiently authoritative). If the information really is correct, I should have no problem finding a valid source. Is that close? As it happens, i do not personally know what the source contains, as i never viewed it. However, AnarchoManiac claimed it was proof of a particular claim with which i disagreed. So yep, you got it right. Ok. On that note, would you mind writing a thread on source validity?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:38 pm
If you want me to write one, i probably could. Do you have anything specific in mind as to what it should cover?
P.S. I think the topic in which all of this originated would be a prime example of so many problems in debates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 7:08 pm
I have two cents, and I feel like throwing them here.
I have a greater desire to throw them at someone than into the pot of discussion, but, either way.
The only reason he was able to refute your original line is because you worded it poorly. Reading it objectively as I did, you sounded like you were being arrogant, like a six year old who can't prove their point. "I'm right because I say I am," or something to that extent. I realize that does not fit the situation perfectly, so I'm going to plagiarize a siggy I've seen in the ED, which does fit the situation well.
"It's like, you're right, but I don't want you to be, so I deny it and hate you instead." You did say, "Even though what he says may be correct, we don't have to listen to it," in relation to the crazy bum, which does imply the idea, "Even if your source is correct, I choose to disregard it because it destroys my argument," or something of that nature. That was the feeling I got from your post at first, and it would be understandable (in my mind) for the original poster to have gotten that feeling toward it as well.
However, upon reading your explanation to the idea you were trying to get across, I do now understand that the two above paragraphs are not the idea that you were trying to display. However, the word choice that you used in that sentence is what caused the initial misunderstanding between you two, if I am understanding the original poster's ideas correctly.
In other words, I do believe that it was not necessarily his argument that was false, but rather, the point he was trying to argue was not the same one that you were trying to argue, and the entire thing was the two of you on completely different pages to the same argument.
And now I feel as if I have contributed to this Guild, as now I have made a post more than two lines long. I'm sure you had probably figured all of this out by now, but, I really felt like posting it as I hadn't felt it had been expressed enough yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:25 pm
While my posts may seem to carry a tone of arrogance, i do not believe anything i have said is worded in a way that can leave doubt as to my position. I certainly do not see how, "The only reason he was able to refute your original line is because you worded it poorly." zz1000zz The validity of a source is not determined by what it says. I see no way for there to be any doubt as to the meaning, or validity of this comment. Beyond that, the supposed arrogance in my posts come from attempting to post in a strictly factual and logical manner. I have noticed some people take issue with my methods, but i do not believe that is something for which i should be faulted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:05 pm
zz1000zz While my posts may seem to carry a tone of arrogance, i do not believe anything i have said is worded in a way that can leave doubt as to my position. I certainly do not see how, "The only reason he was able to refute your original line is because you worded it poorly." zz1000zz The validity of a source is not determined by what it says. I see no way for there to be any doubt as to the meaning, or validity of this comment. Beyond that, the supposed arrogance in my posts come from attempting to post in a strictly factual and logical manner. I have noticed some people take issue with my methods, but i do not believe that is something for which i should be faulted. Please note that I did put which line I was referring to in quotation marks, but I was far too lazy to put it in a quote box to draw attention to it. That was not the line I was referring to. I was instead referring to the line that I quoted. You know, the one about the crazy bum and how you don't have to listen to him just because you don't want to, even if he's right. Also, you seem to be defending yourself against accusations of arrogance that I did not make. Initially, those were the feelings I got, yes, but I also later stated that upon reading your self-analysis, I no longer felt that way because I understood what you were trying to say. I feel as if you didn't even read the second half of my post, which would have saved you from posting pretty much everything you just said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 1:23 am
Corn-Sama Ze Stalker zz1000zz While my posts may seem to carry a tone of arrogance, i do not believe anything i have said is worded in a way that can leave doubt as to my position. I certainly do not see how, "The only reason he was able to refute your original line is because you worded it poorly." zz1000zz The validity of a source is not determined by what it says. I see no way for there to be any doubt as to the meaning, or validity of this comment. Beyond that, the supposed arrogance in my posts come from attempting to post in a strictly factual and logical manner. I have noticed some people take issue with my methods, but i do not believe that is something for which i should be faulted. Please note that I did put which line I was referring to in quotation marks, but I was far too lazy to put it in a quote box to draw attention to it. That was not the line I was referring to. I was instead referring to the line that I quoted. You know, the one about the crazy bum and how you don't have to listen to him just because you don't want to, even if he's right. Also, you seem to be defending yourself against accusations of arrogance that I did not make. Initially, those were the feelings I got, yes, but I also later stated that upon reading your self-analysis, I no longer felt that way because I understood what you were trying to say. I feel as if you didn't even read the second half of my post, which would have saved you from posting pretty much everything you just said. I did read what you said. My comments on arrogance were in no way a defense, but rather a clarification as to why people get the impression. You said it initially sounded arrogant, and i merely wanted to explain why i thought people got that impression. I do find your comment here quite confusing. You said you quoted the line to which you were referring, but the only things in quotations were: "I'm right because I say I am," "It's like, you're right, but I don't want you to be, so I deny it and hate you instead." "Even though what he says may be correct, we don't have to listen to it," "Even if your source is correct, I choose to disregard it because it destroys my argument," I had not actually said any of these, though the third line is close to something i said. However, you did not quote that line until the paragraph after saying, "The only reason he was able to refute your original line is because you worded it poorly." I really see no way i could have interpreted it differently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 5:27 pm
By, "original line," I was instead referring to the first place he quoted something of yours. To me, that is the original line. Both of them. Later, I came close to quoting the second part of it, which I thought would suffice for clarification. Clearly, it did not, and I apologize for the misunderstanding.
That is the quote that I was referring to the entire time.
"Sure, he may be right in what he says, but that does not mean we should listen."
That is what my first post was referring to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:19 pm
Not a problem. It is easy for people to not understand each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 1:23 am
I think what this whole thread boils down to for me is this question.
If the debate were to go to trial, would the individual be accepted as a credible witness?
Not even necessarily an expert witness. Just a credible one. Sure, a crazy bum or a strung out junkie might be telling the truth under oath with amazing accuracy over who committed a crime, but is a jury going to believe them? If either the prosecution or defense were to try to put a crazy bum or a junkie on the witness stand, they might as well just hand over the victory to the other side.
Rule of thumb for me is this: If your source would get you laughed out of the courtroom in a trial, it's time to find a new source that's a tad more credible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 8:03 pm
Kuchehexe I think what this whole thread boils down to for me is this question. If the debate were to go to trial, would the individual be accepted as a credible witness? Not even necessarily an expert witness. Just a credible one. Sure, a crazy bum or a strung out junkie might be telling the truth under oath with amazing accuracy over who committed a crime, but is a jury going to believe them? If either the prosecution or defense were to try to put a crazy bum or a junkie on the witness stand, they might as well just hand over the victory to the other side. Rule of thumb for me is this: If your source would get you laughed out of the courtroom in a trial, it's time to find a new source that's a tad more credible. That is nothing like what this topic discussed. A more accurate example is if an attorney walked into the room, handed the judge a "signed" confession from someone in another state, and then failed to provide any evidence to show it was real.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 9:48 am
Corn-Sama Ze Stalker I have two cents, and I feel like throwing them here.
I have a greater desire to throw them at someone than into the pot of discussion, but, either way.
The only reason he was able to refute your original line is because you worded it poorly. Reading it objectively as I did, you sounded like you were being arrogant, like a six year old who can't prove their point. "I'm right because I say I am," or something to that extent. I realize that does not fit the situation perfectly, so I'm going to plagiarize a siggy I've seen in the ED, which does fit the situation well.
"It's like, you're right, but I don't want you to be, so I deny it and hate you instead." You did say, "Even though what he says may be correct, we don't have to listen to it," in relation to the crazy bum, which does imply the idea, "Even if your source is correct, I choose to disregard it because it destroys my argument," or something of that nature. That was the feeling I got from your post at first, and it would be understandable (in my mind) for the original poster to have gotten that feeling toward it as well.
However, upon reading your explanation to the idea you were trying to get across, I do now understand that the two above paragraphs are not the idea that you were trying to display. However, the word choice that you used in that sentence is what caused the initial misunderstanding between you two, if I am understanding the original poster's ideas correctly. This is what I thought when I read the the subject at matter. Your argument fits into a class caste system. You believe that " Crazy Bums should be ignored because they're so much lower than us. What makes you better than them? Your not, your just another human being with an arrogant aura about you and most likely rich, snobbish, and were taught that you are better than everyone else. People like you just make me want to kick something because I spend my whole life around your sorts and can't make any sense of your mindset or logical explanation. Crazy Bums should be acknowledged just as much as you if not more because they have experienced much more in this ******** up world than your pampered self has. They would know much more and be able to tell a much more interesting story than you. They have gone through a lot, if they are homeless or on the edge of society. Maybe their parents were poor and they couldn't go to college because they had no money. Maybe they had social problems and were immensely troubled by them and couldn't bring themselves to anything better. Or if they had a mental disorder than never got treated and they never got help. What about drugs? and/or alcohol? Not being able to go into rehab or therapy? See the world as it is, before you judge the lower class.
|
|
|
|
|
|
xC H a R M e L i Z a R Dx
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:42 pm
xTHExENDxISxMEx This is what I thought when I read the the subject at matter. Your argument fits into a class caste system. You believe that " Crazy Bums should be ignored because they're so much lower than us. You may think what you will, even if it is completely illogical and idiotic. I did not say anything of this sort. xTHExENDxISxMEx What makes you better than them? Your not, your just another human being with an arrogant aura about you and most likely rich, snobbish, and were taught that you are better than everyone else. You get this from what, the fact that i reject a "crazy bum" as a legitimate source in a factual debate? xTHExENDxISxMEx People like you just make me want to kick something because I spend my whole life around your sorts and can't make any sense of your mindset or logical explanation. The reason you cannot make any sense of my "logical explanation" is that you choose not to read what i say. xTHExENDxISxMEx See the world as it is, before you judge the lower class. There is a certain degree of hypocrisy in this statement. If you bothered to read what was said, rather than simply assume you were correct, you would not have just made a post completely filled with absurdities and lies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
