Calm down, dear.

And I know precisely what the topic is about. It's about crocodiles. That's what I've been talking about this whole time. The rest of you have been talking past me.

Calm down, dear. — S

Too late, you missed the bonus.

You were given an opportunity to play your favorite role, Grammar Nazi, and you missed it. You must be getting old or maybe you just spend too much time not proof reading.

Calm down, dear.
— S

Too late, you missed the bonus.

You were given an opportunity to play your favorite role, Grammar Nazi, and you missed it. You must be getting old or maybe you just spend too much time not proof reading. — Sir2u

You can't kid a kidder.

You can't kid a kidder. — S

Sorry, but if you want to talk about goats you will have to address YOURSELF to Banno.

The basis is simply that person A says "I reasonably supported assertion P," because person A sincerely feels that to be the case, whereas person B says "No you didn't," because they sincerely feel that to be the case.

So now what do we do? — Terrapin Station

Well we would apply reason to determine which was correct. It doesnt matter what each of them feel about the reason, there is a fact of the matter about if the standard is being properly applied. It depends in how exactly you define reason, but that is one way that is useful and meaningful.

Often I wonder if my reply to someone was actually read. Seems every so often they are more scaned than read. Looking for some word steam in them to be quoted back with an argument, often little to do with the idea in the post. It is the equivalent of not listening in a discussion, just thinking about what you are going to say next, and waiting for the other person to stop making noise so you can talk again. It all stems from the same issue in my opinion. It comes from the objective being trying to win an argument instead of participating in an exchange of ideas.

Well we would apply reason to determine which was correct. — DingoJones

And how's that going? Can you give me a single example from the whole of academic philosophy where one of two competing ideas has been rejected by the majority of epistemic peers in the field by the application of reason?

Well we would apply reason to determine which was correct. It doesnt matter what each of them feel about the reason, there is a fact of the matter about if the standard is being properly applied. It depends in how exactly you define reason, but that is one way that is useful and meaningful. — DingoJones

They are both applying reason, though. Re a standard--so some consensus? (Hence my initial question.)

And how's that going? Can you give me a single example from the whole of academic philosophy where one of two competing ideas has been rejected by the majority of epistemic peers in the field by the application of reason? — Isaac

Ya, people can disagree. Some things are more (or less) difficult to sort out. That doesnt mean there is not a fact of the matter about what is reasonable.

That doesnt mean there is not a fact of the matter about what is reasonable. — DingoJones

No, but that's irrelevant if we can't access that fact reliably. I'm not saying the concept is useless. Complete nonsense can be dismissed this way, but when it comes to the really interesting stuff, it is almost inevitable that the very reason it is interesting is that the competing ideas in the field have not proven to be decidable by any means of argumentation we have.

Since I'm someone who I'm sure comes across that way at times, I can tell you that:

(1) Sometimes I don't read a whole post, especially:
(a) if it's long and rambling, and the person is broaching what I consider to be 5, 10, 20 . . . different issues--both are more typical on this board than not, because unfortunately there is a belief that the value of posts is proportional to their length (fostered by this being a problem in "philosophy culture" overall)
(b) if it's in the midst of someone going back and forth with me, where it's clear they just want to argue with me, and where no matter how brief and focused I make my posts to them, they type a lengthy, less focused response. My goal in that situation is to tackle one small thing at a time, bit by bit, in a focused way, with the aim of "settling" that bit so that we can move on from it,

(2) If I agree with most of a post but see an issue with part of it, even if it's just a tangent or aside, I'll just quote and comment on that part. I agree I should announce more often that I agree on the other stuff,

(3) Sometimes I won't be interested in the bulk of a post, even if it's not very long, so I'll just quote and comment on the part I'm interested in, even if it's just a tangent or aside,

(4) There are some posters where I feel it's more or less futile for me to read and interact with them, because they're either not capable of or they're not going to bother communicating with me in a manner that I can understand --this is primarily folks who are most enamored with continental authors such as Heidegger, Derrida, etc. It's great that some people enjoy that stuff, but I never could really make heads or tails out of most of it, and I was never amenable to pretending about it or just glossing over big chunks of it (which I'd have to do otherwise) . . . but occasionally those folks will say something I comment on, in an irrationally optimistic hope that now I'll start communicating with them; and sometimes they'll respond to me.

I never respond to "win" anything, and I don't think it's possible to "win" in any significant sense. I come from the tradition of responding to folks' arguments with objections and constructive criticism, where the aim is to help them find the potential problems with their arguments, so that they can meet the objections, shore up the problems, and have a better argument, even if I don't agree with it.

That doesnt mean there is not a fact of the matter about what is reasonable. — DingoJones

And usually the parties on each side are adamant that the fact of the matter about what is reasonable is on their side. ("But it really is on my side" is usually the response to that.)

They are both applying reason, though. Re a standard--so some consensus? (Hence my initial question.) — Terrapin Station

Not “a” standard, a specific one, the standard of reason. For example, if a person is contradicting themselves then they have failed to properly apply the standard. Obviously, to apply a standard the basis of those standards must be accepted but in the case of reason this is the most basic way we make sense of things. Saying a circle is also a square makes no sense, is not valid reasoning. If you do not accept that then ok, but you have taken yourself out of the ballgame. If you aspire to be reasonable, you have chosen to accept certain basic standard.

No, but that's irrelevant if we can't access that fact reliably. I'm not saying the concept is useless. Complete nonsense can be dismissed this way, but when it comes to the really interesting stuff, it is almost inevitable that the very reason it is interesting is that the competing ideas in the field have not proven to be decidable by any means of argumentation we have. — Isaac

Sure, there are varying degrees of reliability depending on the case in question. It doesnt seem like we are sugggesting mutually exclusive things here.

Not “a” standard, a specific one, the standard of reason. For example, if a person is contradicting themselves then they have failed to properly apply the standard. Obviously, to apply a standard the basis of those standards must be accepted but in the case of reason this is the most basic way we make sense of things. Saying a circle is also a square makes no sense, is not valid reasoning — DingoJones

So the guy who is contradicting himself says that he is being reasonable. You and almost everyone else says he is not, and says that he's not following "the" standard.

So once again, the question is whether "the" standard is determined by consensus.

It is not determined by consensus, as the rest of what I said is intended to illustrate but you have left out for some reason. That seems strange to me, seeing as how it has more to do with your question than the part you DID quote. Whether or not a person thinks they are being reasonable, there is a fact of the matter of whether they actually are. Do you think a circle is a square? Yes? Then you have chosen not to make any sense, a refusal to abide by the standard of reason. No? Great, then make sure you apply that standard to everything else too and of course, there other parts to that standard. ( for example, other logical fallicies)

Whether or not a person thinks they are being reasonable, there is a fact of the matter of whether they actually are. — DingoJones

So if it's not determined by consensus what is it determined by? You say that some claim doesn't make sense and isn't reasonable. The other guy says it does make sense; it is reasonable. You say that it's a fact that it's not reasonable. He says that it's a fact that it's reasonable. Now what do we do. How do we figure out who is right?

didn't read all of that, but guess I agree. Just kidding of course. I do agree in general with all of that. I do find some Gish gallop posts here, and they are frustrating. Also often get posts back with 15 questions, most rhetorical, and pejorative. In general I will persever for a post or 3 if I find the point important. Then just disengage, tell the counterparty they won, and move on.

The standard(s) of reason are the Aristotelian logical laws of thought, which legislate the form but have nothing whatsoever to do with the content. Logic provides the standard criteria to reason but not the validity of reason’s applied relations.

There is no other standard, but rather, various theoretical speculations on its possibility.

So if it's not determined by consensus what is it determined by? You say that some claim doesn't make sense and isn't reasonable. The other guy says it does make sense; it is reasonable. You say that it's a fact that it's not reasonable. He says that it's a fact that it's reasonable. Now what do we do. How do we figure out who is right? — Terrapin Station

You use the standard. What you are talking about is accepting the standard. Im not saying anyone must accept reason, only that should they choose to do so, they are accepting a particular standard, some basic rules that govern what is reasonable. If they do not follow that standard, regardless of whether or not they claim to be doing so, then they are not being reasonable.
The consensus would be in deciding whether or not to BE reasonable, it is something you agree or decide to do. The creation of that standard needs no consensus.
Someone creates a mile, a certain length of distance that they call a mile. If another person says “i just walked 10ft, a whole mile” then they are not correct according to that created standard of a mile. They claim its a mile, but there is a fact of the matter about what a mile actually is and 10 ft isnt it. No consensus required. This person can claim they are using miles, or they can use km instead, or feet instead or whatever..they could get a million people to call 10ft a mile. Doesnt matter, it doesnt change the created standard and when they claim 10ft is a mile they are wrong, they are just calling something else a mile that is not. They have not accepted the standard of the mile, but have rejected it or redefined it into something else (ergo, not a mile).

You use the standard. — DingoJones

This is like saying you use the rules of mathematics to work out what to have for dinner, they just don't apply to the type of problem we have here when people don't agree on certain arguments. There's nothing in the standards (aristotlean or otherwise) which makes the kinds of judgements that need making.

Yes, if someone literally says "a circle is a square" then you could say "according to the rules you agreed to play by, one thing cannot be another", but that's hardly ever what's going on. What usually happens is some long trail of premises and conclusions, some deductive, some inductive, some assumed, all containing dozens of terms all of which could be defined in various ways (the arguments for which themselves being another long chain of propositions). All of this wrapped up in yet another long chain of propositions arguing exactly how we should apply the previous long chain of propositions to the current long chain of propositions. If you think there's any hope of untangling that lot using some very limited set of rules then you haven't been paying attention to the last few thousand years of philosophical debate.

Sure, there is more going on in this forum, and its complicated. I wasnt addressing the OP, that certainly seems to entail some personal feuds and discussions and disagreements about approach from other threads that I was following somewhat but wasnt that interesting, philosophically speaking. What Im discussing with Terrapin (and that you have inserted yourself in), is. To me at least.

They are both applying reason, though. — Terrapin Station

Applying reason is insufficient. Being reasonable is what matters. There's a difference.

Re a standard--so some consensus? (Hence my initial question.) — Terrapin Station

I don't need a consensus to know, for example, if someone has presented an invalid argument. If the standard was validity, then they're being unreasonable. That's how this works.

Validity is just one example. Any claim or argument put forward can be reasonably assessed on a range of different things which can either count for or against it. Things like explanatory power, intuitiveness, consistency, strength of evidence, and so on. There are pros and cons, and you weigh them up.

Not to mention what happens in each case when they jump on your lap. — Banno

:up:

So the guy who is contradicting himself says that he is being reasonable. You and almost everyone else says he is not, and says that he's not following "the" standard.

So once again, the question is whether "the" standard is determined by consensus. — Terrapin Station

No, of course it isn't determined by consensus! If he contradicted himself then he contradicted himself! It doesn't matter what he or anyone else says or agrees to about it. What a silly thing to suggest.

Often I wonder if my reply to someone was actually read. Seems every so often they are more scaned than read. Looking for some word steam in them to be quoted back with an argument, often little to do with the idea in the post. It is the equivalent of not listening in a discussion, just thinking about what you are going to say next, and waiting for the other person to stop making noise so you can talk again. It all stems from the same issue in my opinion. It comes from the objective being trying to win an argument instead of participating in an exchange of ideas. — Rank Amateur

You need to adjust your ranking to your level of contribution. You have grown beyond "Amateur".

You use the standard. What you are talking about is accepting the standard. Im not saying anyone must accept reason, only that should they choose to do so, they are accepting a particular standard, some basic rules that govern what is reasonable. If they do not follow that standard, regardless of whether or not they claim to be doing so, then they are not being reasonable.
The consensus would be in deciding whether or not to BE reasonable, it is something you agree or decide to do. The creation of that standard needs no consensus.
Someone creates a mile, a certain length of distance that they call a mile. If another person says “i just walked 10ft, a whole mile” then they are not correct according to that created standard of a mile. They claim its a mile, but there is a fact of the matter about what a mile actually is and 10 ft isnt it. No consensus required. This person can claim they are using miles, or they can use km instead, or feet instead or whatever..they could get a million people to call 10ft a mile. Doesnt matter, it doesnt change the created standard and when they claim 10ft is a mile they are wrong, they are just calling something else a mile that is not. They have not accepted the standard of the mile, but have rejected it or redefined it into something else (ergo, not a mile). — DingoJones

None of this answers any of the questions I asked you. Do you need me to go into detail why it doesn't answer the questions I asked?

I don't need a consensus to know, for example, if someone has presented an invalid argument. If the standard was validity, then they're being unreasonable. That's how this works. — S

So the standard isn't established by any consensus. What's it established by?

(Note that I'm not arguing pro consensuses or anything like that. The aim here is to get folks to think more about just what they're claiming re how this stuff works.)

None of this answers any of the questions I asked you. Do you need me to go into detail why it doesn't answer the questions I asked? — Terrapin Station

I do not. Your question has been answered, just not in the way you would like me to answer it. Im not going to be restricted to answering you the way you need me to in order to go through the motions of your argumentation. If you are interested in how the standards of reason are established then that is different than reference to the standard afterwards.

Your question has been answered, just not in the way you would like me to answer it. I — DingoJones

I'll remember that in the future for posts back and forth with you. I can type anything and claim that I answered a question you asked, "just not in the way you would like me to answer it."