Meh. I'm not so wild about Harry.

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

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

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.

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



Good points. :up:

Not sure what your point is now. Can you refresh me on what your primary claim is concerning what I wrote? If it's that, re argumentation, an instrumental focus is "better" than a focus on inherent quality, that's fine. But I'm still not clear why you think that or if there's anything worth arguing over that's relevant to the substance of my post.

That is one thing I miss, the formal structured debates and commentary discussions. Along with the short story competition and guest speakers. Need to get in gear and get something done about all that.

And I often find myself admiring Banno's short and punchy style too. — Baden

Though not so much in the last few minutes or so.

Look at how words are being used, and find a way to make them coherent. — Banno

Easy if you know how, Maestro.

Yes, so many variables though. I see you and @StreetlightX do some great long posts, which I think are very useful. And I often find myself admiring @Banno's short and punchy style too. It's very contextual. Quality comes in all shapes and sizes.

How one should go about doing philosophy in general is a different topic. Maybe write an article on it. I'll give you three lines.

Anyhow, if you disagree, let me know what you think persuasion (in your terms, rhetoric* and appeals to emotion**) rules out.

*Which certainly can and often does include invalid reasonIng.
**Which is itself a logical fallacy.

How is it a mischaracterization? These are the points that started our conversation.

I can't help but wonder about the word "best". Is the "best" argument the most logically/structurally sound, or the one that is most likely to convince the other side? — ZhouBoTong

the value of persuasion (rhetoric and appeals to emotion) should not be overlooked. — praxis

Obviously, logical fallacies could be a part of that. Persuasion in general doesn't have structural limits (though rhetoric includes many well-known devices). Zhou spelled out the distinction very clearly and I simply repeated it.

No, it doesn't. It refers to getting-others-to-see-your-way-by-any-means signalling what makes a good argument vs. following-particular-structures-and-guidelines signalling a good argument.

My first ever avatar. :cheer:

The thing about argumentative writing aimed at an intelligent audience is that any rhetorical trickery will be discovered sooner or later and your ideas dismissed because of it. That's not what you want if you want to be taken seriously. But I agree 100% that rhetoric and its devices have a legitimate place in discourse.

I like the way ZhouBoTong talked about the “best” argument. A successful argument gets others to see something your way. — praxis

In one way, yes. On the other hand, I may get successfully and most directly from A to B by motoring down the wrong side of the road. But it would be a stretch, to say the least, to call that good driving. That's the angle I'm coming from.

No, really. I wrote an article on argumentation, in a general academic context, by request. I put it in resources for reference purposes (also because the article site isn't active at the moment). I didn't write this as a template for an OP either in terms of length or complexity. And I am not advising people to write essays at each other in place of regular posts so that they can presume the other person is wrong and not listen to them. Re post limits: there won't be arbitrary word limits on posts here. We mod on post quality, and excessive length is just one potential consideration in judging quality. Lastly, I'm sure there are real openings for objections to the substance of the article if you want to make them. But quote me if you're going to do that.

:zip:

Oh yeah, then we'd really be cookin' with grease! — 180 Proof

I bring the potatoes. Street adds the gravy. :razz:

Look for dissonance. — Amity

I like that. Very often a dissonant twinge can reveal a hidden premise or some other logical (or otherwise) fault or omission if we're paying proper attention. Extremely important to root these out in an academic context, whereas there is a danger of getting too granular in more informal situations.

This comment has virtually nothing to do with what I wrote either in terms of its intention or its substance. Short enough for you?



:point: :up:

And thanks for the push. :wink:

Hey thanks! It could do with a little more exemplification here and there, but I feel like it was an afternoon well-spent anyhow. It was either that or Cheetos, grits, and the ball-game with @Hanover. It's fine placed here for the moment but I'll talk to jrob about getting the article section of the site active again.



@praxis made a similar point and his use of the word "persuasion" is key. A distinction can be made here. Persuasion can primarily be judged by immediate results, and, concerning method, is highly contextual and psychological. Argumentation can primarily be judged by good general practice, and is more fixed and logical (especially in an academic context). That could be the subject of an article in itself. But I'll leave it there for now.

Thank you, oh purveyor of Bannoism and all things goatish.

How to respond to people who make irrelevant or intentionally trollish attempts to derail your initial argument?

If the response is irrelevant, one can get caught up in a labyrinth of trying to steer someone who doesn't really understand the initial premise back on track; as for trolls, how do we get them to go back into the woodwork and stay there? — uncanni

Give a shot at clarifying it. If that doesn't work, ignore them because no matter how much of a failure these people are at argumentation, they are likely to still succeed in frustrating you and wasting your time (which—if they are a troll—is their main goal anyway). On here, you can always use this, temporaily or permanently, as required: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5738/ignore-list-browser-extension . And then concentrate on those who are offering sincere challenges or requests for clarification.

This is some good shit. Recommend pinning it. — fdrake

Cheers bro', will pin it in resources.

(Thought this might be useful for the learning centre and @Amity asked me to do it. So, there you go.)

Alright, did that. I put it in the learning centre for now: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7014/effective-argumentation

Well, you did a better job. I'm not sure that will please @Wallows, but no doubt we'll find out.

This isn't very responsive to my post. I'm not calling for outrage, for example, I'm calling for awareness, preciseness, and diligence in the use of words. But I'll get back to this in more detail later.

(I might add that I'm very sympathetic to the rule of thumb of considering race realists racists, they almost always are, but collapsing the precise distinctions between those terms is unnecessary, unjustified, and undesirable for reasons including those outlined above.)

When I use ‘race’ in cultural terms I make sure it is clear enough in the context. In scientific terms there are no human races, yet there are some extremely subtle differences within the gene pool. It should be noted that there are larger differences within any give group of people than there are between groups.

The problem that does persist, as I pointed out several pages back, is the ill-informed opinion that conflates ‘race’ (scientific definition) with ‘race’ (cultural definition). We are not going to eradicate the term ‘race’ from the English vocabulary and given the growth of our understanding over time - when we were mistaken into thinking that relatively small differences in appearances are key to determining scientific demarcations - we’ve naturally dragged along outdated, and misused, terminology into today’s world. — I like sushi

:up:

All you have to do is state clearly how you are using the term as honestly as possible and bring understanding to the discussion that some people are going to get twitchy about the subject matter given the historical implications, different national attitudes, and/or there scientific inclinations.

I don’t think it helps matters when people insist their definition is the true definition. In those situations the best thing to do is to express your understanding of their term and then state as clearly as possible what your take is and ask how they would articulate your definition as best they can. — I like sushi

It's not really that simple. When it comes to politically loaded terms, definitions can have important consequences. If you dilute the definition of racism too much, it helps those with ulterior political motives to forge false equivalencies between very disparate groups—for example, those proposing affirmative action and white supremacists. That's really what's at issue here. Attempts to gerrymander a definition in support of a political point. And I suspect the point that's being pushed for under the guise of a very liberal-sounding anti-racism is that a lack of colour-blindness as advocated for in the OP can be considered a form of racism.

But regardless of whether that's the intention or not (@NOS4A2 is a paradigmatic pin-the-jelly-to-the-wall poster so who knows), no sensible debate can be conducted until an agreement is reached on the meaning of the terms under debate. And the arbiter of such meanings has to be some kind of mutually recognized authority interpreted correctly.

Agreement is useless without a willingness to simply accept someone else’s perspective. — I like sushi

I admire your call for moderation, but some perspectives are better than others. Particularly when discussing issues that have political implications.

No. I try to keep that stuff separate. I've started writing something along the lines suggested though, so I'll keep you posted. :up:

Check out all this attention. @Banno eat your heart out. :wink:

Actually, I've started a blog on various aspects of writing on my site, including how to write academic articles. What I might do here is write an article on argumentation (claims, reasons, warrants, and evidence etc). Anyhow, we're off-topic, so I'll shut up now. Feel free to send a PM about any of this and thanks for the encouragement. :up:

No, that's not what happened. Done here. And another goes on ignore.

Here's my takeaway from the Naming and Necessity thread, — Wallows

And here's my takeaway from the local Banno Pizzeria.

Another candidate for world's biggest arsehole. And, surprisingly, it's not Piers.



This is why people hate politicians. And somehow he just can't help himself.

You're completely wrong on this point and @creativesoul is right. Separate definitions are separated by numbers in dictionaries and such, or if not, it's made clear what's what. The "and" after the semi-colon is the rest of that definition and not a separate alternative in the version you posted. Hence "and" not "or". You do yourself no credit by clinging on to the falsity that racism is defined fully by the one sentence you cherry-picked from the definition. It just makes you look either intellectually dishonest or lacking in basic comprehension skills.

So, the proposal is Banno celeb pizza for the front page. I suppose if you put a bit more effort in to the OP, I wouldn't object. PM me your best shot. And this is me trying to be helpful, believe me.

Maybe pick one of his ideas and go with it.