In a field like science or maths, this kind of mentality makes sense. There is a right/wrong answer, show me your argument and let's evaluate it together using agreed-upon rules. In philosophy, things get bogged down in simplicity because participation in the deeper discussion means agreeing on more basic premises. If I do not agree with your premise, my only contribution to your question/topic is to explain why I disagree with that premise and hence the basic disagreement i.e is God real (for religion) comes up again and again endlessly. It doesn't matter if you post a great question about God or a silly one. The same really applies to all topics, the deeper you go, the more likely it is for the topic to be derailed into a premise. Which means that the actual question never gets answered, the premise of the question becomes the debate. This is a form of regression that always occurs.

The problem is that sometimes there are deeply flawed premises which have to be questioned, many questions don't deserve to be taken seriously because of these flaws. If you try to take them seriously regardless, the whole conversation is pointless because you're both simply wrong.

So it's not as simple as preventing a behaviour, it is often necessary and the nuance on whether it should be done or not, too complex to be put in as a kind of rule.

If you want to avoid regression, you need to find like-minded posters who are likely to accept your basic presuppositions. Many posters simply look for these regressions, usually because they are ideologically informed or ideologically opposed. So if you want to avoid them, learn their names and do so.

However, even the really good posters, you will have a great time agreeing with but will you ever actually add to their knowledge or change their opinions on something? It is exceedingly rare to see that happen (and be noted). I won't speculate as to why that is, all I can say is that if you come to forums like this hoping for that kind of thing, I would advise you that you're wasting your time.

WroteI'm jealous, the early internet seemed like a pretty cool place. The pioneering days, before the digital suburbia popped up.

I answer Naah, guys sat on low speed links watching low resolution nude pics afraid that their bosses, like me, would come into the room... seriously, It was same, same but poorer equipment. Thing with the 90’s though was the positive derivata. Computing was a nerd thing from the 70’s into the 80’s until nerd Berners-Lee happened to do some stuff that made the PC usable for non-nerds. Cd rom making games attractive too. The hey days peaked with napster. Last 10 years nothing new has really happened. So thats boring. But activities are pretty mych same same. My son would argue highly for esport to be a plus for now and maybe thats correct.

wrote
However, even the really good posters, you will have a great time agreeing with but will you ever actually add to their knowledge or change their opinions on something? It is exceedingly rare to see that happen (and be noted). I won't speculate as to why that is, all I can say is that if you come to forums like this hoping for that kind of thing, I would advise you that you're wasting your time.
I answer I dont really think that the success of a thread is individual posts or even posters. Its if, for instance, someone can kind of wrap up what has been said an made a kind of summary. That works pretty well in eg some political forums I sometimes visit.

How many actually READ a dialogue between two combattants as bystanders?

This is no tradgedy, this are the hey days of my life. — Ansiktsburk

Sorry, missed that on the first pass of your post. :up:

I value PF because a couple of occasions I've gotten really good advice from the forum. The forum (and it's predecessor) taken as an entirety as a collective has actually very much knowledge and understanding. If you have ideas about philosophy, math and logic, you can float it here and get an answer if it's crazy or not, or which reading might help you. Far easier than for example when being in the university.

In the fall of 2007 thanks to a discussion here (or basically on the predecessor site) I got alerted to the speculative bubble that was going to implode. As this isn't a financial forum, this viewpoint from another PF member got my attention and it was very important for me. And the last reminder of that PF members do notice what is happening was the coronavirus outbreak, which I have to say I didn't myself at first think so much about (as ebola, sars, etc. outbreaks had been contained), but the thread started by and especially Benkei got my attention.

In the political sphere I think the one of the best things that PF gives you more knowledge is not only to listen to intelligent remarks, but also to notice tone of the discourse itself. What is generally accepted, where do people really have disagreements. I tend to think that the discourse has gotten a bit more aggressive than before (even if it always has been somewhat aggressive) and that may portray something about the time we live in, not just that it's election season in the US.

I would get worried if the thoughtful Americans here would really start to talk about a civil war or something equivalent or would truly lose their faith in their country. But as that hasn't happened, I'm still optimistic about the future.

There's an expectation that if you start a new discussion then you should take part. Other than that it's entirely up to you.

Did someone post something that left you confused? Ask a question.

Did someone post something you think is really off? Hmmm. Now things get interesting. Does this poster sound knowledgeable? How much free time do you have? Does (s)he curse out other posters who disagree with them? Are you OK with being insulted? Etc.

Are you OK with being insulted? — EricH

I don't mind just as long as they're making a point somewhere in the flurry of their emotion. It is a challenge to clash with a skilled thinker, and many people do not have the ability to do it (this is not because they are inferior, but because their social process was lacking the intellectual nourishment which creates such ability). Skilled thinkers need to be humble, they are leveraging their privilege not their own individual, autonomous superiority. Intellectuals do not exist without society, where you find an intellectual there you can be guaranteed that he passed through a qualitative social process. It's probably best to reply to this on the thread I specifically made for the topic: Knowledge is a Privileged Enterprise

However, even the really good posters, you will have a great time agreeing with but will you ever actually add to their knowledge or change their opinions on something? — Judaka

I’ll tell you what I find to be a productive habit of thought. I will defend an idea to the death while someone is disagreeing with it. But as soon as they start agreeing, then I start doubting it myself.

Belief should be constantly tested. So either you want others to be testing it for you. Or you have to switch to testing your own certitudes.

That can lead to strange dynamics on a forum if the reasons for seeking constant disagreement rather than settling for cosy agreement (even with one’s self) are not understood.

free form thought exchange is exceedingly rare. Especially in a society that favors quotable truth over the real thing. That being said I'm glad to know there are others that favor originality over pedigree.

4. Zoom. Good idea but people do not want to out. Needs some afterthought — Ansiktsburk

I Zoomed with a fellow philosopher on this forum. The two of us were dead set against each others' opinions on a number of points. We had serous ego sensitivies. We hated each other and let it loose in some of our debates.

When we Zoomed, to both of our surprizes she turned out to be my own grandmother.