Ok, got it. We don't really disagree then.



Good points. :up:

Right. So, if you managed to write an article in an afternoon this should be easy-peasy.
Just make it so :cool: — Amity

Workin' on it.

1. I had a look at the Debate section. There's probably a reason why formal debate doesn't work so well online. However, it would hold a fascination - depending on the who and what.
2. What is a 'commentary discussion' ? — Amity

They seemed to create more excitement and work better at the old site. The commentary discussion was where posters commented on how the debate was going. We could have that and a poll on who's winning maybe to create more interest.

3. I remember talking about that before - about a year ago ? — Amity

I've officially started the ball rolling on that now. Provided it's agreed, I'll go ahead an organize one for the end of this year.

4. Who did you have as a guest speaker? How did that work - like an interview ? — Amity

Two big names were Searle and Chalmers. We picked people to start discussions based on questions and the idea was they would answer those questions and maybe some follow-ups. It usually worked fairly well as far as I remember though we didn't always get as much participation as we would have liked.

I tend to laziness...
The thought of writing an article in an afternoon...it would take me months, even if.
However, I guess if you've already done the research and have the sources and information ready, then it's a walk in the park.

Thanks again for all hard work — Amity

You are more than welcome. But If you want to see some real hard work, check out, for example, this: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4023/marxs-value-theory/p1

The reason long posts tend to be bad is that people generally can't go for a long time without making mistakes, so it gives you the chance to confuse yourself badly with no one to stop you. What impresses me most about debate in general and in philosophy in particular, after many years witnessing it, is how bad it tends to be. This is its core feature and the one that needs to be made top priority if you ever want conversation to get anywhere (I am skeptical of the value of conversation for this reason – people just can't really do it).

You also get screeds, soapboxing, 'big picture' stuff that doesn't really amount to anything concrete, etc. It's impossible to get people to say something coherent and substantive when they have free rein.

It's impossible to get people to say something coherent and substantive when they have free rein. — Snakes Alive

Funny, I've had a little professional cross-over with philosophers (plus what I've heard in public lectures and seminars on YouTube) and what I've found to be the case is the exact opposite. Maybe we move in different circles.

I've found debate among professional philosophers to be mostly open, accepting of the fact that no concrete or substantive things can really be said, and that most alternatives have their merits to at least some extent.

The idea that, for example, some notion is incoherent, or nonsense, or just plain wrong in an objective sense seems pretty much limited to forums like this, and further, to people with some basic knowledge on a subject annoyed that their 'superior grasp' of it is not being given what they consider to be due respect.

Yes, indeed. Real Hard Work. @fdrake must have felt a real sense of achievement.
Hope y'all had a sparkling party :party:
Many Congrats to All the Team and Long May The Forum Prosper :sparkle:

Thanks for answering all my questions. Best wishes :up:

Yes, indeed. Real Hard Work. fdrake must have felt a real sense of achievement. — Amity

Maybe? I dunno what for though. @Baden's our lord and saviour.

I'm up for eternal life and shit but can we skip the crucifixion? :chin:

The idea that, for example, some notion is incoherent, or nonsense, or just plain wrong in an objective sense seems pretty much limited to forums like this, and further, to people with some basic knowledge on a subject annoyed that their 'superior grasp' of it is not being given what they consider to be due respect. — Isaac

The rules of logic are the same for everyone, and everyone should be expected to follow them, not just some people, when they feel like it, or when it supports their position and abandon it when it doesn't.

I've found debate among professional philosophers to be mostly open, accepting of the fact that no concrete or substantive things can really be said, and that most alternatives have their merits to at least some extent — Isaac

If nothing concrete or substantive can be said then why say anything at all?

The rules of logic are the same for everyone, and everyone should be expected to follow them, not just some people, when they feel like it, or when it supports their position and abandon it when it doesn't. — Harry Hindu

Some rules of logic, the rules of entailment - in particular - are dubious.

What do you mean? Can you give an example? Googling logical entailment provides links like this:
https://gawron.sdsu.edu/semantics/course_core/lectures/html/logic_lecture/node20.html

Which don't define it as dubious, so any clarification of what YOU mean by "dubious", would be helpful in understanding your claim.

Study Gettier's 1963 paper...

Gettier needs for Smith to believe that someone else will get the job. He doesn't. He can't. Rather, Smith is justified in believing that he will, and he firmly believes such.

If that's not what Gettier meant, then Smith holds false belief, and the paper poses no issue for JTB, regardless of what the rules of entailment permit. The rules of entailment allow changing the truth conditions of Smith's belief. The rules of entailment involve the changes we're allowed to make to another's belief(Smith's in this case). It does not follow from the fact that the rules of entailment allow us to move from "I will get the job" to "The man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job" that Smith can possibly believe that someone else will get the job.

The move from "I" to "the man with ten coins in his pocket" is bridged by the thinker. In Smith's mind, if he made such moves in thought, the two share the same referent.

”DON'T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED HEAP OF PARROT DROPPINGS!”

“SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME PUKE! YOU VACUOUS TOFFEE-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!”

The rules of logic are the same for everyone, and everyone should be expected to follow them, not just some people, when they feel like it, or when it supports their position and abandon it when it doesn't. — Harry Hindu

Well. Firstly, why should everyone be expected to follow the rules of logic? That seems prima facae to be an unsubstantiated claim. To what end?

Secondly, what exactly are the 'rules of logic', and how would they have been derived if only logic can derive true models?

Thirdly, how would you adjudicate in situations where two opposing positions claim to have been following the rules of logic?

But notwithstanding, the above is a distraction because I never said anything about logic at all, I was just saying that what SA identifies as incoherent and not substantive is exactly the sort of thing other people may consider coherent and substantive and that people (in my experience) actually seem more likely to resort to those accusations as a means to reject some discourse here than they do in professional circles.

If nothing concrete or substantive can be said then why say anything at all? — Harry Hindu

Have you never read a poem?

Anyway, as a relative newbie, it seems to me that most threads follow this format: OP asks interesting question; contributors more or less ignore the OP, bang on at great length on their hobby horses; then start quoting each other and ripping each other to shreds. A few rays of light shine through the general murk, but there's not much sign of this OP"s suggested format.

You might say, well clear off then - but it's strangely addictive!

Well. Firstly, why should everyone be expected to follow the rules of logic? That seems prima facae to be an unsubstantiated claim. To what end? — Isaac

Because if you didn't you wouldn't be coherent. No one would understand what you're saying, and you'd get a lot of questions asking you to clarify.

Secondly, what exactly are the 'rules of logic', and how would they have been derived if only logic can derive true models? — Isaac

"Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies" would be one.

Thirdly, how would you adjudicate in situations where two opposing positions claim to have been following the rules of logic? — Isaac

Which one has more evidence to support their claims?

But notwithstanding, the above is a distraction because I never said anything about logic at all, I was just saying that what SA identifies as incoherent and not substantive is exactly the sort of thing other people may consider coherent and substantive and that people (in my experience) actually seem more likely to resort to those accusations as a means to reject some discourse here than they do in professional circles. — Isaac

People think the same way about gods. Where has that gotten us? Absolutely nowhere.

Science is what has enabled progress in our understanding of how human beings fit into the grand scheme of things.

If nothing concrete or substantive can be said then why say anything at all? — Harry Hindu

Have you never read a poem? — Isaac

Poems don't have anything concrete or substantive to be said?

Maybe someone has mentioned this already?

It makes sense writer not commit to strongly to their position. In a debate the purpose is to push home your point to ‘win’ the debate. In an argumentative exchange if the writer is only defending their claim then the discussion can quickly crumble.

On the other hand, if the writer marks out their position as a one of at partial suspicion and provides some inkling of how they doubt their own claim then I am much more willing to engage as all too often people cherrypick evidence that bolsters their claim and believe the mere quantity of evidence is a sufficient and solid position from which to dig in. A singular point can decimate an argument, but if the writer doesn’t even present the possibility of their view having gaps and cracks in it they tend not to take on board counter evidence unless they can either turn it on its head or counter it.

Another point would be making the distinction between an ‘inductive’ argument and a ‘deductive’ argument. Again, this is a common enough problem of misidentifying the type of argument on both the part of the person presenting the argument and those who respond. It’s so easy to miss this one sometimes.

Your argument can only ever be as strong as your claim allows anyhow. But depending on how you go about defending your claim, it could be a lot weaker. That's the perspective I take. If you're sure your claim is on solid ground then give it the best support you can.

If you're unsure of your claim then you're more in discussion territory and your commitment is tentative. The point is whether or not you commit fully should depend on your assessment of the strength of your claim. And the dichotomy I'd put forward is argument vs discussion with a formal debate just being a type of argument you've fully committed to defending over the course of the debate regardless of what transpires therein.



Yes, I'd thought of the deductive, inductive, abductive stuff. Could easily be another article.

Give me abductive every time.