- Thank you received: 0
Formal Logic and Scientific Method
- tvanflandern
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
20 years 9 months ago #8528
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
The Moderators here are making an effort to phase out trolls, the people who take argumentative or provocative positions simply to stand back and enjoy the fireworks. If you don't think we are catching those, please drop one of us a note rather than producing the fireworks the troll hoped for.
The rules of logic, much like the math of infinities and other acquired human knowledge, are neither a birthright nor instinctive. They must be learned, and part of that learning process is learning to value what they do for the mind (discipline). Without those guidelines, we would all tend to let our wild imaginations and peer pressures excite us into accepting beliefs that are not well-founded in experimental or logical reality. Another important part of that learning process is to continue to respect those around us who have not yet learned mental discipline.
It should be obvious that we all bring different degrees of eduction and experience to these discussions. Less obvious are Piaget's teachings about how different minds function differently, and more to the point, learn differently. Some need abstract visualizations while some need real images. Etc. There are so many mental skills, and we all have different capabilities in each of them: reasoning, memorization, abstraction, induction, deduction, intuition, creativity, analysis, visualization, organization, synthesis, empathy, collation, computation, judgment, ability to unlearn or correct error, problem-solving ability, motivation, normal association, creative free-association (“thinking outside the box”), communication, awareness, nurturing, ability to distinguish reality from fantasy, and others I can't think of at the moment. It is important to appreciate that we all tend to favor the skills we are better at and avoid those where we are at a disadvantage.
I realize it can be a fine line, and comes down to a judgment call. But my experience says that 123... is making an honest effort to defend a position that he/she sincerely believes in, but which has never been subjected to this type of scrutiny before. So communicating does indeed require patience and a variety of approaches -- something not all of us bargained for when entering the discussion. My own habit is to respond when that person still has interesting (for me) things to say or shows a genuine interest in learning or understanding the position of others. Failing any of those, I'm unlikely to comment.
Expecting someone to change his/her mind on the spot in response to an argument is unreasonable unless the matter is really trivial and without other consequences. Unlearning is a slow, long-term process in all of us because we have to check through our entire learning tree of internal knowledge for other consequences first. That is why it is important not to anger an adversary in a discussion. When you part of good terms, one or the other party can then go through the lengthy unlearn/relearn process and come back at a later date as an ally, maybe even a grateful one. But if you part on angry terms, no reflection ensues, and anger will be one's first memory at any later encounter.
Although I could have wished for more maturity in 123... by not responding to insult with insult, my reading of the exchange is that jrich crossed the ad hominem line first this time. I do not see 123...'s argument as an instance of trolling, as jrich does (without using that word). But I do agree that is a judgment call.
Nonetheless, in the future, let the Moderators handle these matters, and prompt us if we are not following the discussion closely enough to catch these instances. Be patient with each other, and just drop out or ignore comments that add nothing of value to your own interests. That way, we'll keep this as much of a learning experience for everyone as it can be, appreciating that not everyone who wants to discuss these matters or learn here has already had several years of post-doc experience. [
]
After all, what's the point of discussing controversial topics just with like-minded people? Thanks. -|Tom|-
The rules of logic, much like the math of infinities and other acquired human knowledge, are neither a birthright nor instinctive. They must be learned, and part of that learning process is learning to value what they do for the mind (discipline). Without those guidelines, we would all tend to let our wild imaginations and peer pressures excite us into accepting beliefs that are not well-founded in experimental or logical reality. Another important part of that learning process is to continue to respect those around us who have not yet learned mental discipline.
It should be obvious that we all bring different degrees of eduction and experience to these discussions. Less obvious are Piaget's teachings about how different minds function differently, and more to the point, learn differently. Some need abstract visualizations while some need real images. Etc. There are so many mental skills, and we all have different capabilities in each of them: reasoning, memorization, abstraction, induction, deduction, intuition, creativity, analysis, visualization, organization, synthesis, empathy, collation, computation, judgment, ability to unlearn or correct error, problem-solving ability, motivation, normal association, creative free-association (“thinking outside the box”), communication, awareness, nurturing, ability to distinguish reality from fantasy, and others I can't think of at the moment. It is important to appreciate that we all tend to favor the skills we are better at and avoid those where we are at a disadvantage.
I realize it can be a fine line, and comes down to a judgment call. But my experience says that 123... is making an honest effort to defend a position that he/she sincerely believes in, but which has never been subjected to this type of scrutiny before. So communicating does indeed require patience and a variety of approaches -- something not all of us bargained for when entering the discussion. My own habit is to respond when that person still has interesting (for me) things to say or shows a genuine interest in learning or understanding the position of others. Failing any of those, I'm unlikely to comment.
Expecting someone to change his/her mind on the spot in response to an argument is unreasonable unless the matter is really trivial and without other consequences. Unlearning is a slow, long-term process in all of us because we have to check through our entire learning tree of internal knowledge for other consequences first. That is why it is important not to anger an adversary in a discussion. When you part of good terms, one or the other party can then go through the lengthy unlearn/relearn process and come back at a later date as an ally, maybe even a grateful one. But if you part on angry terms, no reflection ensues, and anger will be one's first memory at any later encounter.
Although I could have wished for more maturity in 123... by not responding to insult with insult, my reading of the exchange is that jrich crossed the ad hominem line first this time. I do not see 123...'s argument as an instance of trolling, as jrich does (without using that word). But I do agree that is a judgment call.
Nonetheless, in the future, let the Moderators handle these matters, and prompt us if we are not following the discussion closely enough to catch these instances. Be patient with each other, and just drop out or ignore comments that add nothing of value to your own interests. That way, we'll keep this as much of a learning experience for everyone as it can be, appreciating that not everyone who wants to discuss these matters or learn here has already had several years of post-doc experience. [
]After all, what's the point of discussing controversial topics just with like-minded people? Thanks. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
-
- Visitor
-
-
- Visitor
-
- tvanflandern
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Time to create page: 0.442 seconds