useful procedures

Are there any useful terms or procedures that are for keeping a debate on track? As I participate in the forums I tend to see things going south with discussions along predictable lines. Is there an shortened term out there to indicate that someone should specifically define the terms they are using? How about a term to request a statement of the logical or objective principal someone is using to come to a conclusion?

Post 1

Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - 7:39pm

Try a private email.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - 9:54pm

It is not unusual that people don't have the same take on what the original issue was meant to be. If people don't take the time, read carefully, ask a question if necessary, etc., to make sure they understand the issue exactly as the other disputant, all is doomed.

Only the most seasoned and careful thinkers take the trouble to do this. Most people take their initial reading as infallible and never look back. The slackest find some part of the initial statement that they can speak about, and then proceed to speak about it. The debate as such, the issue as a target, is somebody else's responsibility.

With a clearly defined issue or subject, it isn't too hard to stay on track. When digressions seem to be occurring, you identify the explicit relation between the new subject and the original. If it is really a digression, that will show, and you then urge people back to the topic. If the new subject does have a logical bearing, you pursue it with its relation to the original issue in mind. That lets you know when the side-track is finished and there should be something gained to contribute to the original issue.

Bill has done that a couple of times, I've noticed, brought us back to the original question. (Apologies to others who have also, but I don't recall.)

Getting off on the right foot is crucial. Keeping your purpose explicit in side-discussions. Mainly, though, it is a matter of the sincerety of those you argue with.

It probably is going to turn out better if you offer someone two definitions, the one that is correct, and the one he seems to be using, because his choice, structured this way, will speak to the material difference that made you want to ask for a definition in the first place.

As for identifying what underlies someone's opinions or beliefs, sometimes, if the evidence is there, you can do the same thing, asking if he holds with belief A because x,y,z. But more likely, you will just have to ask, why do you hold with this? Or, less personally, what evidence is there for your position? But I suppose none of this is news...

added: Writing this has given me a quilty conscience, realizing I haven't always taken the time I should. ;-(

(Edited by Mindy Newton on 2/03, 9:56pm)

(Edited by Mindy Newton on 2/03, 10:04pm)

Post 3

Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 12:21am

Mindy, what a sweet heart you are! I read that part about "The slackest find some part of the initial statement that they can speak about, and then proceed to speak about it. The debate as such, the issue as a target, is somebody else's responsibility." And I had two thoughts.... One was that I wanted to speak about that statement (Yes, and to leave the responsibility for thread to someone else). But I also felt guilty about that, knowing I have done just that many times. And then I read your ending, about your guilty conscious :-)

So, getting back to the one small part... I'd say that the very slackest is the person that picks out some small part and and attacks it, especially in an ad hominem fashion and without regard to the heart of the discussion.
--------

Ryan,

Mindy and Ted's posts are both good advice (see, I'm getting back on track to protect my conscience). Another technique is to ask specific questions of the last people who were on track. And asking others with clearly off-topic posts if they would be willing to open a new thread.

But it looks more like you are talking about a different kind of 'getting off track' and not getting off of the thread's topic (which is how I first read what you wrote). Are you asking what to do when someone's arguments start to fall into a predictable sort of fallacy or a predictable kind of deterioration?

Post 4

Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 8:26am

Ryan, search the RoR archives for my summary and review of William Kilgore's book An Introductory Logic which outlines the most common logical fallacies with examples.

Refer to these when calling others on their rubbish in forums.

Post 5

Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 12:25pm