Of course I encourage meaningful debate here at my blog. Of course I do. I have no problem whatsoever with people disagreeing with me about the things I write. In fact, I've made commenting on GTE as simple as I know how. But how about doing ol' Doug a favor? In order to keep our discussions meaningful, can we dispense with certain annoying debating tactics?First - and I put this one first because it "gets my goat" most of all - is something I not only think is bad tactics, I consider it rude. This is spouting out the cliche "you're comparing apples and oranges."
This is usually dragged out when an analogy or illustration is used for the purpose of making a point. When someone cries "apples and oranges" to me it makes me feel they either aren't listening or they are just being evasive.
The truth is, apples and oranges can be compared with good effect. Which isn't to say there are ways in which they aren't comparable. And, no, they aren't exactly the same thing.
But if you tell me an illustration I'm using is "apples and oranges," you can't just leave it there with that. It is your responsibility to explain why the illustrations fails and in what way it violates the principle of similarity. Even if you feel the illustration is weak, you should explain why and how it is weak.
So yes, feel free to tell me you think I'm comparing apples and oranges, that is, making an unreasonable comparison. But be a pal and good debating opponent and explain why you feel this is so.
Okay, here is another oldie but goody, and while I find it annoying I must confess I find it so funny it almost causes me to wet my pants when I hear it. I'm writing about when someone asks me concerning a point in dispute: can you prove it didn't happen?
Let's get this straight. It is the responsibility of the person making a claim to justify that claim. It is silly to challenge someone to prove that something isn't the way you claim it to be. That isn't good debating. It isn't debating at all.
If I question your theory or proposition, it will hardly do to respond, "can you prove it's not that way?" Maybe, maybe not. That's not the point. It just so happens you are the one making the claim; so prove it.
I love my comments section. I love to hear from you guys, agree or disagree. But if we are going to debate things, let's - as they say - keep it real.
5 comments:
Why don't YOU keep it real and address this to me. I hear you loud and clear. I gave you proof that you were wrong about Sagan on life on other planets. I took up too much space explaining my points. I have been trained in debate and I need no lecture from you. Good luck getting just the perfect comment.
As you wish, Diane. This post was indeed inspired by our recent exchanges here. I didn't feel it was necessary to state that because if anyone by chance had been following our discussion they would realize it; and if not, the post stands on its own and is still a true statement of the two most frequent "tactics" I run into when discussing things with people.
So you say your were trained in debate? Then you have the advantage of me. I have no training at all in debating. But I think debates tend to give off more heat than light. I prefer frank discussions. That is why I detest debating tactics, the purpose of which is to parry away rather than face squarely the subject at hand.
I wasn't attempting to "lecture" you. Instead it was a plea to keep our discussions helpful. Entertainment is fine and all, but that's not what my blog is about. It is an attempt to look at our world through the lens of reason and to encourage people to think. Anyone reading my and Rainlillie's and mine and your recent exchanges might have found it more like a ping pong match than a for real discussion.
As for the "perfect comment," I'm tempted not even to respond to that. My post wasn't about comments so much as discussions, or informal debates. Go ahead and reread it and see for yourself and see if that isn't what I said: I love my comments section. I love to hear from you guys, agree or disagree. But if we are going to debate things, let's - as they say - keep it real.
Diane - And I will respond to your claim that you gave me proof that I was wrong about Sagan on life on other planets.
How do you figure?
In response to your original comment of "...didn't Carl Sagan claim there was life somewhat of the human nature on other planets? Where was HIS extraordinary proof? Still he made the claim, based on his observations, past science, and a theory."
To which I responded:
"As for Sagan, I'm not aware that he made such a claim. I do believe he, like many scientists, believed there is life throughout the solar system. But that is an extension of the fact that life has a chemical basis and could evolve any place the proper chemicals and environment exists. No extraordinary evidence necessary."
I did not play the clip you posted on your Plato blog for the reason I explained. But I was going to go back this evening anyway and see how long it would take me to download it. Then I couldn't find your blog. What's up with that?
So while I can't reproduce here the exact response I left there, it was essentially the same as my claim above. That is, Sagan was most probably inferring that there is life "out there" based on the probabilities of the case. If so, he is not as you suggested, going against his extraordinary proof slogan.
That, after all, was our disagreement.
I'm still unconvinced he made the claim that human-like life definitely exists somewhere in space. Even if he did (and I would feel no obligation to agree with him if he did!), he didn't do it without a reasonable basis.
In "Carl Sagan: A Biography", we are given the following quote from an interview that he gave the year he died:
"[The discovery of extraterrestrial life] would be an absolutely transforming event in human history. But, the stakes are so high on whether it's true or false, that we must demand the more rigorous standards of evidence. Precisely because it's so exciting. That's the circumstance in which our hopes may dominate our skeptical scrutiny of the data. So, we have to be very careful. There have been a few instances in the [past] we thought we found something, and it always turned out to be explicable..."
Isn't that clear?
Post a Comment