RoR: Forum

Regi,

But, I'll be honest, I do not "debate," because it implies two things I am either not interested in or disagree with: 1. that an argument is something to be won, and 2. that it is possible to convince others.

First of all Regi, I'd like to say that you have misidentified half of my initial purpose. Although the title may be thought as misleading, in my introduction, I did not merely claim that I was outlining the rules of reasoning. I added the word "tools" for a special addition when I said "rules AND tools" (emphasis mine ... er, ah, emphasis ADDED!). Think of the "tools" as part of a ploy to overwhelm irrationality with transparency ("... you can't ever get too much clarity ...").

On this view, there are 2 distinct purposes aimed at:
1) Rules of Reasoning
2) Tools of Transparency

The purpose of logic and argument to me has only one purpose, to provide me with the tools I need to ensure I reason correctly. Exactly what does one win if they win a debate?

Regi, good things can be won. The inspiring reasoning of the Declaration of Independence and the subsequent freedom that was fought for and won is an example. For some other candidates, see my response to Jordan on the Existence Exists thread for 4 examples of things that may have been prevented if more reason had been injected into the population at large (my treaty is meant to merely "break the skin" of the population - after that, you may add all the flavorful, flamboyant reasoning you want).

I do not believe it is possible to change others. It is possible to help those who want to change to see how to do it; it is possible to present information and reasoning about things that some might use to change their own minds.

Regi, I exist as a living contradiction to this. While it's true that you cannot change others against their will, you can make their mind grow (permanently) with new ideas, and make them want to make the changes on their own (but inspired by YOUR ACTIONS). All this really boils down to "education is possible, even in moral matters."

Ed

Post 21

Friday, May 28, 2004 - 5:43pm

Hi Ed,

My comments you addressed were mostly and expression of my personal MO, not about your intention or purpose.

For example, you said: First of all Regi, I'd like to say that you have misidentified half of my initial purpose.

That could true, but I think I understand your purpose; it's pretty 'transparent' actually. I was only saying it doesn't apply to me, because I don't share your purpose. I'm not arguing for my view, only telling you what it is and why I am a poor candidate for evaluating your method, since I have no interest in the thing your method is intended to accomplish.

The inspiring reasoning of the Declaration of Independence and the subsequent freedom that was fought for and won is an example.

Sure, but we didn't win our independence by arguing with the British, we shot at them. These two methods are generally considered mutually exclusive.

While it's true that you cannot change others against their will ....

You cannot change others, even if they want you to. (In fact, this is very easily demonstrated. There are many drug addicts, alcoholics, and other's who find it "too hard" to control themselves who beg others to change them. If anyone could really change others, all of these would be helped all the time. They're not.)

The idea that you change others violates the notion of volition. If anything you did changed one choice or thought of another, you would have usurped their volition, which is not possible.

I would rather spend my time and effort with those I do not have to convince or influence because it is many times more profitable than that same time and effort trying to convince and influence others. I've already explained why I like to discuss issues with those who disagree with me, and it has nothing to do with trying to convince them. That's their business, not mine.

Actually, it is a little presumptuous to think it is our mission in life to change others, and I'm certainly not trying to change you. I'm just explaining my view.

Regi

Post 22

Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 10:45pm

Regi,

_______________

I was only saying it doesn't apply to me, because I don't share your purpose. I'm not arguing for my view, only telling you what it is and why I am a poor candidate�for evaluating your method, since I have no interest in the thing your method is intended to accomplish.
_______________

Fine then - be that way. I will not bring it up anymore - as long as you let me have the last word, by attempting to psychologize you (I warned you that I'd let you know if I were ever successful at integrating aspects about you in a noncontradictory fashion):

-You are basically saying that my essay/treaty doesn't apply to you because rules and transparency don't apply to you. I'm willing to bet that you have adopted this stance because of frustrated attempts to reason with others in your life (at least that's why I sometimes feel that even rules and transparency won't or don't matter anymore in this world)

-You say that you don't share my purpose, yet I hardly know anyone so rigidly rational as you are (hell, you are more rational than is reasonable - if that ain't a contradiction in terms!). I think that you share the purpose, just not the hope

_______________

The inspiring reasoning of the Declaration of Independence and the subsequent freedom that was fought for and won is an example.
�
Sure, but we didn't win our independence by arguing with the British, we shot at them. These two methods are generally considered mutually exclusive.
_______________

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... I knew THAT ONE was coming when I typed the words! I'd say that "you really got me there!" on this one if (and only if) it weren't for the fact that the explicit reasoning, once laid out, DID serve to empower the will of the people to fight for something worth fighting for.

I agree that they surely felt that something was wrong with a motherland that was forcing them to provide room-and-board to soldiers, to pay taxes on tea, etc. But you have to admit that just reading the words is inspiring and empowering, Regi. You have to admit that - were you there - it would charge you with absolute moral rectitude and finality of purpose. Even if one more life was spared/freed by the empowerment of those words charging through a Freedom Fighter's veins - those words served a purpose that is immeasurably more grand than a corporate mission statement hanging on the wall of a fortune 500 company.

_______________
�
You cannot change others, even if they want you to.
_______________

Regi, it is literally MY JOB to do this. I'm a college instructor and students pay thousands and thousands of dollars to be changed (educated). I WITNESS them change (grow).

Sure, not everyone is actually there for the education - I realize this. Some of these students could care less WHAT or even IF you taught them, just as long as they get the degree they "paid" for. Some of them seem hell-bent on NOT EXPANDING their minds - I know this. Some of them are self-defeating because of the previous education, parenting, and philosophical error that they have incorporated into their self-concept - I know this.

But NOT ALL people are like this, Regi. And your "demonstration" of self-evidence with examples of drug addicts just "demonstrates" that you have no idea how to select a representative sample in order to make a rationally justifiable inference to a larger population (I'm using figurative speech here - literally, I know that you really are highly intelligent, I know that you're capable of much better than this). In short, your "drug addict" reasoning is seriously flawed, Regi - and I can prove it. Just look at your main line of this reasoning once more:
_______________

If anyone could really change others, all of these would be helped all the time. They're not.
_______________

I could logically tear that syllogism to threads (and I know that you could too, Regi! - if you only injected a little "rules and transparency" into the evaluation of it).

_______________

The idea that you change others violates the notion of volition. If anything you did changed�one choice or thought of another, you would have usurped their volition, which is not possible.
_______________

Nice try, Reg. But do you want something really unreasonable? I'll give you something "unreasonable."

Try this on for size - what you're saying here is that we're all unaffected by others. Why, How? Volition. Volition keeps us from learning and growing in response to interacting with others. The only way that humans ever learn and grow is from solitary rational reflection. Reflection on what? No answer. Reflexion on an experience in a society of individuals who live on earth together? No answer. Reflexion on an alternative perspective that was offered up as a either superior or even inferior to the one currently held by the thinker in question? No answer - just reflexion, no trade, no "benefit from the rationality of others."

_______________

I would rather spend my time and effort with those I do not have to convince or influence because it is many times more profitable than that same time and effort trying to convince and influence others. I've already explained why I like to discuss issues with those who disagree with me,�and it has nothing to do with trying to convince them. That's their business, not mine.
_______________

Okay, "never spend more time on a critic than you'd give a friend" - I get it.

_______________

Actually, it is a little presumptuous to think it is our mission in life to change others, and I'm certainly not trying to change you. I'm just explaining my view.
_______________

I didn't say it's anyone's duty, Regi. I'm merely attempting to make headway in the direction of positive change. I'd like to think that I'm effortfully trailblazing, sort of like attempting a "Lewis & Clark" across the human condition.

Ed

Post 23

Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 7:05am

Ed,

Fine then - be that way.

"I yam what I yam."

I think that you share the purpose, just not the hope.

Yes!. Very perceptive.

You cannot change others ... Regi, it is literally MY JOB to do this.

Your being payed to do the impossible. Nice work if you can get it. I'm glad for you.

Well, you do have the last word, and, as always, I enjoyed your words.

Regi

Post 24

Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - 12:20am

Earlier in this thread, I had promised a "mock" discussion utilizing rules and tools from the rational discussion treaty (RDT 2.0) - here it is.

Michael Moore vs. Ed Thompson - Round One (Oil issues)

Background
Michael Moore has, in his new book: "Dude, Where's My Country?", a chapter which outlines a futuristic (year 2054) discussion that he is having with his great-granddaughter: Anne Coulter Moore. The discussion concerns the Doomsday issue of running out of oil. By the time the discussion takes place, they've actually run out of oil and are having trouble keeping warm.

Moore makes some bold claims as if we can take them for granted as being obvious and/or irrefutable. In order to evaluate whether or not Moore's claims are justifiable, I have taken excerpts from his book, and incorporated them below. These book excerpts can all be found on pages 87-94.

Source: Moore, Michael. Dude, Where's My Country? New York: Warner Books, 2003

Key:
A = Anne Coulter Moore (Michael's fictional great-granddaughter)
M = Moore himself (only as a much wiser man, due to his advanced age of100)
Ed = yours truly

A: When you were young, were people really so stupid to think that there was enough oil to last forever? Or did they just not care about us.

M: Of course we cared. But in my day, our leaders swore on a stack of Bibles there was plenty of oil ...

Ed: Stop. Stop right there. Let's construct ourselves a syllogism from these premises in order to see the reasoning above more clearly (here is the gist of what the book says) ...

If people (who "care") don't realize that oil supplies are not infinite and unlimited,

and continue using up this finite and limited supply of oil which must, necessarily, run out someday,
___________________

Then, people are so stupid that they will use it all up, leaving a cold future of doom and gloom.

Ed: However, this argument (as stated) is actually an enthymeme - it has a "ghost premise" that is implied but explicitly missing. Let's put in the "ghost premise" and check for soundness once more ...

If people (who "care") don't realize that oil supplies are not infinite and unlimited,

and continue using up this finite and limited supply of oil which must, necessarily, run out someday,

(and, as the oil supply runs low and the demand for it increases, the prices don't increase to reflect this newfound ratio of supply and demand - something which would, by the way, automatically stimulate the development of cheaper alternative fuels)
____________________

Then, people are so stupid that they will use it all up, leaving a cold future of doom and gloom.

Ed: And now, once more, but this time with "truth" and "relevance" evaluations assigned to the premises ...

If people (who "care") don't realize that oil supplies are not infinite and unlimited,
***this is actually a ridiculous and irrelevant statement. Unless, of course, you are an unreasonable "New Ager" who happens to "embrace infinity" and who thinks that oil grows on trees. In short, everybody knows supplies are finite (and not infinite) - the truth of this premise has no bearing, one way or the other, on the validity of the conclusion***

and continue using up this finite and limited supply of oil which must, necessarily, run out someday,

(and, as the oil supply runs low and the demand for it increases, the prices don't increase to reflect this newfound ratio of supply and demand - something which would, by the way, automatically stimulate the development of cheaper alternative fuels)
***this new key premise - that was only assumed implicitly in the original argument - makes all the difference in the world. In short, the only possible way that we could achieve a Moore-told disaster is by having a centrally-planned, socialist, command economy which, while having all the power of a billion people, fails to attain/ascertain the wisdom of a billion people (Free Markets are exempt from this type of disaster)***
____________________

Then, people are so stupid that they will use it all up, leaving a cold future of doom and gloom.
***With the comment above, it should now be clear that, in order to retain truth and validity, rewording is necessary: change "people" to "collectivists" (e.g. "people are so stupid" becomes "collectivists are so stupid") in order to make the argument valid and rationally justifiable!***

Ed: So a clear view of Moore's argument reveals that it is unsound. It rests on the erroneous, unfounded presumption that humans don't have the rational capacity to adjust to a changing environment.

That we are all dependent on a single source of energy.

And that if we don't stop using that source now (and freeze to death now - so that our great-grandkids can have ...), then there will come a time in the future when we will run out (and freeze to death later).

Notice how we have to stop using oil now (and freeze to death) so that our great-grandkids can have something to burn to keep warm! I wonder what Moore would say about dead people having offspring! Maybe he thinks kids grow on trees.

End of Round One
Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/01, 12:21pm)

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/01, 6:22pm)

Post 25

Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - 9:35am

Michael Moore vs. Ed Thompson - Round Two (Oil issues)

Source: Moore, Michael. Dude, Where's My Country? New York: Warner Books, 2003: 87-94.

Key:
A = Anne Coulter Moore (Michael's fictional great-granddaughter)
M = Moore himself (only as a much wiser man, due to his advanced age of100)
Ed = yours truly

A: Where did people come up with the idea for BURNING oil? Why would you burn something you have only a little bit of? Did people burn diamonds back then, too?

M: No, people didn't burn diamonds. Diamonds were considered precious. Oil was considered precious, too, but no one cared. We just turned it into gasoline, lit a spark plug and burned the damned stuff any chance we could!

Ed: Stop. Stop right there. Let's construct ourselves a syllogism from these premises in order to see the reasoning above more clearly (here is the gist of what the book says) ...

If people "care" about precious things, they won't burn them,

and people burn oil (which is considered precious),
___________________

Therefore, no one cares.

Ed: However, this argument (as stated) is actually an enthymeme - it has a "ghost premise" that is implied but explicitly missing. Let's put in the "ghost premise" and check for soundness once more ...

If people "care" about precious things, they won't burn them,

(and if there are no instances where something is relatively precious precisely because there is a tremendous benefit to the burning of it)

and people burn oil (which is considered precious),
___________________

Therefore, no one cares.

Ed: And now, once more, but this time with "truth" and "relevance" evaluations assigned to the premises ...

If people "care" about precious things, they won't burn them,
***this is actually a ridiculous and irrelevant statement. It gets its implied relevance "second-hand" via an equivocation with diamonds, which happen to be precious in a different way - in a way that does not involve burning - the truth of this premise has no bearing, one way or the other, on the validity of the conclusion***

(and if there are no instances where something is relatively precious precisely because there is a tremendous benefit to the burning of it)
***this premise is false, and therefore invalidates the conclusion***

and people burn oil (which is considered precious),
___________________

Therefore, no one cares.

End of Round Two
Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/01, 6:23pm)

Post 26

Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - 6:20pm

http://www.navc.org/whohasbuses.html

Michael Moore vs. Ed Thompson - Round Three (Oil issues)

Source: Moore, Michael. Dude, Where's My Country? New York: Warner Books, 2003: 87-94.

Key:
A = Anne Coulter Moore (Michael's fictional great-granddaughter)
M = Moore himself (only as a much wiser man, due to his advanced age of 100)
Ed = yours truly

A: My sixth-grade teacher told us one of your leaders believed "hydrogen fuel cells" would replace gasoline cars, but they didn't. That was crazy! Today every kid knows that hydrogen is hard to get. Sure it's in [water], but it takes a lot of energy to break off the hydrogen - and a lot of energy was what you didn't have. Duh!

M: You're right, Anne, we were all hepped up on so much Prozac and cable television that we always believed what our leaders told us. We even believed them when they said that "hydrogen was the Second Coming - limitless, pollution-free energy that will soon replace oil!"

Ed: Stop. Stop right there. Let's construct ourselves a syllogism from these premises in order to see the reasoning above more clearly (here is the gist of what the book says) ...

If it takes a lot of energy to break hydrogen off from the water molecule,

and a lot of energy is precisely what you don't have,
___________________

Then, it's crazy to think that fuel cells will eventually replace gasoline cars.

Ed: However, this argument (as stated) is actually an enthymeme - it has a "ghost premise" that is implied but explicitly missing. Let's put in the "ghost premise" and check for soundness once more ...

If it takes a lot of energy to break hydrogen off from the water molecule,

(and it doesn't provide you with a reliable output of usable energy, some of which could be redirected to the process of further liberation of hydrogen from water)

and a lot of energy is precisely what you don't have,

___________________

Then, it's crazy to think that fuel cells will eventually replace gasoline cars.

Ed: And now, once more, but this time with an additional "ghost premise" of my own (watch closely) ...

If it takes a lot of energy to break hydrogen off from the water molecule,

(and it doesn't provide you with a reliable output of usable energy, some of which could be redirected to the process of further liberation of hydrogen from water)

and a lot of energy is precisely what you don't have,

***and, as it happens, there aren't any instances of material evidence that stand in direct contradiction to the notion of questioning fuel cell viability - such as the several fully-operational instances of fuel cell buses, which are available online at:

___________________

Then, it's crazy to think that fuel cells will eventually replace gasoline cars.

Ed: To those arguing that fuel cell technology is still prohibitively expensive, see the Free Market Supply-Demand-Cost interactions outlined above (or simply glance at the changing relative cost of computers in the last 10 years for a visualization of this process). Enough said.

End of Round Three
Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/02, 8:43am)

Post 27

Friday, December 16, 2011 - 7:21am

I added this as my favorite article!
Perhaps now I can actually win an arguement with my wife!(although that's highly unlikely she truly is the sharpest tool in the shed!)

Post 28

Friday, December 16, 2011 - 3:41pm

Jules,

The link to the 'Big 8 Axioms of all Rational Thinkers' is broken. Humph, that has a double meaning. :-) Well, anyway, here is a breakdown of them -- and here is a new link which works:

http://mol.redbarn.org/objectivism/writing/RonMerrill/AxiomsTheEightFoldWay.html

Ed

Post 29

Friday, December 16, 2011 - 5:39pm