Tweet
Having a conversation about another forum that I've posted on since I was about 17 reminded me of something that I felt might be of use to folks.
I am a member of a discussion forum for a group of Wilderness Survival Enthusiasts. It's an odd mix of people, ranging from crotchety ex-marines in their 80's to Survival Instructors and Authors to the average hikers and campers that just want to learn how to take care of themselves. We use to have an area called "Discussions and Debate", which was kinda our version of Fratching! It was probably my favorite part of the forum since the stats said that 80% of my posts were there. Anyway, there was another member who seemed to take great delight in argueing anything with me. At first, this was beneficial to me because he forced me to think and support my conclusions. Eventually it got tiring because instead of "debating" with me, he'd simply declare that all the research I presented in support of my conclusions were "invalid" either because I didn't do the research myself (sorry, but I don't have the time, the money, or the access to labs or archeaological sites JUST to argue with you over the fossil record when I'm not getting paid for it!) or because he didn't consider the person writing the article to be a reputatble scientist for one reason or another. (I think the example I used in my conversation was that he'd declare Stephen Hawking wasn't competant to present research on astro-physics because he got his degrees from Oxford and Cambridge and this guy didn't consider those to be "reputable" schools.)
The other thing that use to piss me off was his constant declaration that anything learned from a book was invalid (going back to his insistance that if you didn't do the research yourself, the knowledge was wrong/invalid because you read it in a book). He use to use the phrase "I smell the dusty mildew of books behind that arguement" as a derisive way of dismissing any research you presented in support of your conclusions if he didn't agree with them. NO ONE can research EVERYTHING and be an expert on it through personal experience. EVERYONE, even quantum physicists, Doctors, Engineers.....all the "experts" in various field didn't start from scratch. They READ what previous "experts" had done and improved upon it. This is called INNOVATION, deal with it! I think it was either Gailleo or Sir Isaac Newton, who said, upon being praised for his work, that if he had seen farther than other men, it was merely because he had stood upon the shoulders of giants. He was acknowledging those who had come before him, who's research and observations had laid the foundations for his own understanding and breakthroughs. Knowledge is a cumulative process. One generation studies something, tests it, forms a theory and records it's finding. The next generation takes that knowledge and adds their own observations and findings. The next generation takes that and does it again until finally someone comes along and sees what those before them didn't and makes a "Eureka" moment that changes the way we view the world!
Simply declaring that something learned from a book is invalid is merely a childish debate tactic for when you are loosing the arguement. If ya' want to cite opposing research that SHOWS said book is INCORRECT that's another thing entirely.
Anyway, I found a few videos that I liked that related to the subject of Debate that I thought might be helpful to everyone here:
First off, why a bunch of YouTube videos? Well, it has to do with something known as Crowd Driven Innovation and what happens When Ideas Have Sex.
The Dunning-Kruger Effect: The Illussion of Superiority
Open-Mindedness
Critical Thinking
Skewed Views of Science
These cover a few things I've noticed when having conversations with people on a variety of subjects. 2 and 3 were of particular interest.
Transactional Analysis Series:
TA 1: Ego States and Basic Transactions
TA 2: Games
TA 3: Gimmicks
TA Appendix: YouTube Games
and finally:
The Lost Art Of Democratic Debate
Another article that I ran across years ago talks about the benefits of being a Heretic. That is looking under rocks and thinking things yer not suppose to be thinking. It's called "What You Can't Say" by Paul Graham. Now it's kind of disturbing that he points out that even today we have Social and Moral Fashion Trends that dictate what we can and cannot talk about. An that it's often safer to keep your mouth shut and be able to THINK what you want.....although I "think" that doing so, while definitely safer for yourself is a loss for society as a whole. To quote Heinlein:
I would also extend that to say "any culture or society" as well.
All I ask is that you take the time to watch the videos and read the articles before commenting, just so ya' know where I'm coming from on this.
I am a member of a discussion forum for a group of Wilderness Survival Enthusiasts. It's an odd mix of people, ranging from crotchety ex-marines in their 80's to Survival Instructors and Authors to the average hikers and campers that just want to learn how to take care of themselves. We use to have an area called "Discussions and Debate", which was kinda our version of Fratching! It was probably my favorite part of the forum since the stats said that 80% of my posts were there. Anyway, there was another member who seemed to take great delight in argueing anything with me. At first, this was beneficial to me because he forced me to think and support my conclusions. Eventually it got tiring because instead of "debating" with me, he'd simply declare that all the research I presented in support of my conclusions were "invalid" either because I didn't do the research myself (sorry, but I don't have the time, the money, or the access to labs or archeaological sites JUST to argue with you over the fossil record when I'm not getting paid for it!) or because he didn't consider the person writing the article to be a reputatble scientist for one reason or another. (I think the example I used in my conversation was that he'd declare Stephen Hawking wasn't competant to present research on astro-physics because he got his degrees from Oxford and Cambridge and this guy didn't consider those to be "reputable" schools.)
The other thing that use to piss me off was his constant declaration that anything learned from a book was invalid (going back to his insistance that if you didn't do the research yourself, the knowledge was wrong/invalid because you read it in a book). He use to use the phrase "I smell the dusty mildew of books behind that arguement" as a derisive way of dismissing any research you presented in support of your conclusions if he didn't agree with them. NO ONE can research EVERYTHING and be an expert on it through personal experience. EVERYONE, even quantum physicists, Doctors, Engineers.....all the "experts" in various field didn't start from scratch. They READ what previous "experts" had done and improved upon it. This is called INNOVATION, deal with it! I think it was either Gailleo or Sir Isaac Newton, who said, upon being praised for his work, that if he had seen farther than other men, it was merely because he had stood upon the shoulders of giants. He was acknowledging those who had come before him, who's research and observations had laid the foundations for his own understanding and breakthroughs. Knowledge is a cumulative process. One generation studies something, tests it, forms a theory and records it's finding. The next generation takes that knowledge and adds their own observations and findings. The next generation takes that and does it again until finally someone comes along and sees what those before them didn't and makes a "Eureka" moment that changes the way we view the world!
Simply declaring that something learned from a book is invalid is merely a childish debate tactic for when you are loosing the arguement. If ya' want to cite opposing research that SHOWS said book is INCORRECT that's another thing entirely.
Anyway, I found a few videos that I liked that related to the subject of Debate that I thought might be helpful to everyone here:
First off, why a bunch of YouTube videos? Well, it has to do with something known as Crowd Driven Innovation and what happens When Ideas Have Sex.
The Dunning-Kruger Effect: The Illussion of Superiority
Open-Mindedness
Critical Thinking
Skewed Views of Science
These cover a few things I've noticed when having conversations with people on a variety of subjects. 2 and 3 were of particular interest.
Transactional Analysis Series:
TA 1: Ego States and Basic Transactions
TA 2: Games
TA 3: Gimmicks
TA Appendix: YouTube Games
and finally:
The Lost Art Of Democratic Debate
Another article that I ran across years ago talks about the benefits of being a Heretic. That is looking under rocks and thinking things yer not suppose to be thinking. It's called "What You Can't Say" by Paul Graham. Now it's kind of disturbing that he points out that even today we have Social and Moral Fashion Trends that dictate what we can and cannot talk about. An that it's often safer to keep your mouth shut and be able to THINK what you want.....although I "think" that doing so, while definitely safer for yourself is a loss for society as a whole. To quote Heinlein:
When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives.
All I ask is that you take the time to watch the videos and read the articles before commenting, just so ya' know where I'm coming from on this.
Comment