Kevin's Watch

+JMJ+

I've thought about this off-and-on. Recently, I read an article that "there-ed" the problem in bold relief. The real flaw, the achilles heel, that seems to freely flourish in the Think Tank is that "… at some point in the early modern period it became possible, and then normal, to think of “reason” as an essentially dispassionate and disinterested faculty capable of discerning first principles and deducing final conclusions without any surd of the irrational left over …".

The Think-Tank proceeds from the presumption that all things of value (the really Real) can issue in a purely logical systemic, one without irrational remainder. Hence, the 30+ pages of posturing.

Now, of course, a critique of the The Close's dynamics could probably be made, so this is not to say that it doesn't have its own problems, but the savagely frenetic chatter of autonomous logicbots is not one of them.





PLEASE NOTE: No specific persons are being targeted or identified in this post.

----------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT: Since misunderstandings about the purpose of this thread have seemingly been ameliorated, I've restored the original thread-title and the original OP for reference purposes.

You need to say what you think a Think-Tank that is not wrong looks like.

As a device for demonstrating how well you can argue a point of view despite all the obvious points against it, and for publicly shaming anyone whom you consider a challenge to your attempts to do so, it's a perfect vehicle.

A thread about one forum in another forum! I like it!

Can't comment at the moment. No time. I'll be back.

The problem is that not enough people are posting there. The more points of view we can encompass, the better the chances of arriving at a rounded view of any given situation, which can take all perspectives into account.

Irrationality? As a subjectivist, all views must be at least partly irrational, because what is real is different for each of us.

--A

It's all belief and opinion. Both here and in the Tank. One argues that this position, supported by these facts, is most important. Another argues that this other position, supported by these other facts, is most important. The other person's facts may be accurate, but they are not as important as my position.

Further, I believe we are naturally inclined, and I think "inclined" is often putting it mildly, to the positions we support. At some point, we read or hear something about a particular topic, and it resonates in us. We feel we have discovered a Truth. Then we go looking for more things to support that position.

Some of us find this position fairly early in our lives. We might hold it solidly throughout our life. Or we might have reason to question it, or even abandon it. But we often see people returning to their old position.

Some of us only learn of a certain view on a subject later in life, after having had another view of it in our minds for years. The Eureka moment hits, but is resisted. Sometimes things that come along with the other view (family pressure, for example) are too powerful to overcome, and the person is torn between what they have been told is true and what they feel is true. Sometimes the conflict makes the person miserable.

Nothing is true. Everything is permissible.

--A

Fist and Faith wrote:One argues that this position, supported by these facts, is most important. Another argues that this other position, supported by these other facts, is most important.

But is that what's "wrong"? I don't think so. But it follows that political discourse isn't to discuss, because no one's opinion will be changed. It's a contest about whose opinion is superior. And even then, no one's opinion about that will be changed, either. Which leaves it to be really about the satisfaction of having the fight ... of winning. And winning in this case means demonstrating the inferiority of other arguers, not other positions. Preferably in full view of spectators. This is why the predominant means of starting discussions is posting something that makes a point of view look bad, and by extension making anyone who supports that POV look bad.
And it means its about enjoying the humiliation of others. Everything that's "wrong" follows from that - the ad hominems to discredit posters, the mocking, the insults, the intentional aggravation, the inflammatory trolling, the ganging up, and the hubris of defending the indefensible.

We need a thread discussing what is wrong with a thread discussing what is wrong with a subforum called the Think-tank. When you go meta, go big.

Fist and Faith wrote:...Sometimes things that come along with the other view (family pressure, for example) are too powerful to overcome, and the person is torn between what they have been told is true and what they feel is true. Sometimes the conflict makes the person miserable.

Avatar wrote:Nothing is true. Everything is permissible.

Subjectivists make everything difficult for thems that aint!

It's like here I am walking on some hilly ground... unsteadily, but I'm still walking...
And then someone (a subjectivist) is all like, "hey! *wave* You should come over here and have a debate with me!"
"Friction is drastically reduced, and the slope is much steeper, but c'mon!"


And I'm like, "that's supposed to be fun?"

Let's make a Meta forum, and let SerScot be mod.

wayfriend wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:One argues that this position, supported by these facts, is most important. Another argues that this other position, supported by these other facts, is most important.

But is that what's "wrong"? I don't think so. But it follows that political discourse isn't to discuss, because no one's opinion will be changed. It's a contest about whose opinion is superior. And even then, no one's opinion about that will be changed, either. Which leaves it to be really about the satisfaction of having the fight ... of winning. And winning in this case means demonstrating the inferiority of other arguers, not other positions. Preferably in full view of spectators. This is why the predominant means of starting discussions is posting something that makes a point of view look bad, and by extension making anyone who supports that POV look bad.
And it means its about enjoying the humiliation of others. Everything that's "wrong" follows from that - the ad hominems to discredit posters, the mocking, the insults, the intentional aggravation, the inflammatory trolling, the ganging up, and the hubris of defending the indefensible.

The problem is, indeed, the attitudes. It's not that nobody is going to change anybody's mind. That's a given, and not the reason anybody gets involved. "I like this system of government, because x, y, and z." "Oh yeah? Well I like this other system of government, because of 1, 2, and 3." Is the same as "I like this author, because of...". We all like what we like. It's all just something to communicate about. The attitudes come more with certain subjects than others, though.

Fist and Faith wrote:...It's not that nobody is going to change anybody's mind. That's a given, and not the reason anybody gets involved.

I think that sometimes, people's minds -do- change... after years and years of arguing, some of the people engaged in the Tank grow in respect of others - even those who are their "natural opposition."

I might be wrong, though.
I'm inferring this from the way I've seen comments (showing up periodically in more casual conversations) where someone laughingly says, "Wow, I can't believe this - I'm agreeing with you, person-I-always-argue-against! Yer getting into my head."
(Though.. for all I know, that could be retro 'Tanker social patterns.)

Vraith wrote:

Orlion wrote:

peter wrote:I wonder if people who hold strong views on a given issue are more prone to radical shifts of oppinion than people whose position is already fairly central or undecided [eg undecided people re God tending to stay undecided with believers tending to shift directly to the unbelief camp and vica-versa].

It depends. In my case, some of the more prominent beliefs that use to define my being needed to be opposed by a dramatic shift in opinion... mostly, though, I've seem to have just moved to the center, even if it is just a stopping point before moving elsewhere.

That's a good question, peter.
My first thought was it sure appears like the endpoints swap, the middle flows.
My second thought was that it might just appear like that because people tend to notice the extreme more, and the extremes also tend to make more noise.
And prominence/importance as Or. says, makes a difference.
Likely cuz it is connected with identity/sense of self.
All that to say, I don't know, it seems complicated, I doubt anyone does know.
You should research it.

I remember this from the "changing our minds" thread.. what vraith said with his first thought really kinda stuck in my head.

Fist & Faith wrote:Let's make a Meta forum, and let SerScot be mod.

Wonder what'd happen.
Btw, SerScot.. nice job wearing (approximately) the same quote in your sig as I have in my sig.

+JMJ+

wayfriend wrote:You need to say what you think a Think-Tank that is not wrong looks like.

I think the title of this thread is unhelpfully specific and I would personally prefer if it were altered to something more general like: 'Is hyper-rational discourse fundamentally flawed?'

Although I do not consider myself to be either 'promethean' or a 'logicbot', I enjoy the intensity of discussions in the 'Tank and enjoy engaging in debate of that sort*. I do not have any sense that this makes me some sort of soulless rhetorician, and regardless of the claim that '[n]o specific persons are being targeted or identified', as a regular participant in the 'Tank I could easily take this as directed personally at me. The 'Tank is sparsely populated these days so it is not difficult to guess at potential targets, which, IMO, is why a more general topic title would be preferable.

[ON TOPIC]

As I see it, to understand how political discourse has developed in the West it is necessary to understand the Enlightenment. Essentially this is the dethroning of God and religion as the main source of political power and their replacement with rationality and science. This is also present in the separation of Church and State and the general process of the secularisation of the public sphere.

This is something that we in the West accept as the normal way of things because we recognise that using any religion as the source of political power/direction has the major weakness of imposing beliefs and restrictions on people who are not members of that religion. While I personally recognise the flaws in hyper-rational debate**, I also recognise that I prefer it to debate that flows from religious/metaphysical premises that I do not believe in.

Wosbald wrote:"... at some point in the early modern period it became possible, and then normal, to think of 'reason' as an essentially dispassionate and disinterested faculty capable of discerning first principles and deducing final conclusions without any surd of the irrational left over ...".

While I understand how the author may have come to this conclusion I disagree with it. And, IMO, it is also specifically inaccurate in relation to the 'Tank. On a number of occasions when a topic has been fully discussed and at least two positions*** have been shown to be valid the people holding those two positions have (as Fist alludes to) recognised that their differing starting premises/beliefs are based on their own personal preferences and may actually be a form of expression of their differing characters. This is an overt recognition that irrational/irreducible elements are at play even in the most hyper-rational of debates.

u.

P.S. If this post is a stereotypical example of hyper-rationality then that is an unintended irony on my part (and if some people find that funny, a bonus).



*I have looked elsewhere on the Internet to see if I can find a forum similar to the 'Tank and I have yet to find it. If anyone has any suggestions please let me know, as some days now activity in the 'Tank can be very slow.

** As a European 'liberal' I have serious issues with instrumental rationality and its detrimental effects on society.

*** An interesting thing that I have come to intuit is that there are at least two specific modes of discourse in the 'Tank, one based on consensus and one based on conflict. As I see it, each of these modes is actually an expression of the general political position that a person holds, and by extension, an expression of the individual's type of character. (I know that others do not agree with me about this, but obviously that's to do with their character, heh!)

+JMJ+

In the interests of peace.

There is no forum on earth like the 'Tank.

--A

the problem with the Tank is that I am not paid for my brilliant opines.

sgt.null wrote:the problem with the Tank is that I am not paid for my brilliant opines.

You aren't? I get a check every week.

You post less than Sarge...we can afford you.

--A