I'm often very puzzled by things people say in debates whether here on the Org or on Facebook or in real life.

.

I totally agree with the Vulcans, Greek philosophers and Ayn Rand when it comes to the idea that any reasoning should be based on logic processes and factual data and by no means on subjective appreciations that don't have solid grounds, or then one should admit they're absolutely bad faith and being so on purpose. Of course one can make a mistake in their logic analysis, omit a fact or distort a causality for example, but then they should be able to acknowledge it when the flaw is being exposed by someone else. It's like math you know, u can make a mistake in your calculations but when the math teachers explains to you what it was and what the logical reasoning should be, one doesn't start arguing with their teacher: they just acknowledge the fact and move on.

.

However I keep seeing people making the most irrational, illogical reasonings and statement and even when it is shown to them that their reasoning doesn't stand the test of logic, they will basically "ignore" the critical analysis and usually reply to something else than what was just demonstrated to them in order to keep defending their position. It's like their brain is not able to compute (or they pretend it ain't).

.

Usually this happens mostly online. In real life conversation, IDK if it's the body presence, the eye contact, the sound of the voice, people are usually more likely to admit that their reasoning is flawed. It hardly ever happens to me that people will start totally tripping in real life, they'll be more like "oh... yeah, OK, u made a point". It may be also that the presence of each other in a room and the peaceful tone of voices give a more pacific tone to the conversation and people are less on the defensive IDK, I found out that written conversation generally emplifies the notion that people are being agressive even when they don't mean to be, not sure why.

.

It also happen in the most desperate cases that people will understand the logical flaws of their reasoning and then on the next day repeat the nonsensical things they were saying before and have totally forgotten everything about the day before's conversation. But that would mostly be my father and he's very old so I guess maybe after 60 or so the brain, if untrained, fries or something

.

So basically what I'm wondering is whether people:

- are not intellectually able to understand the logical flaws in their reasonings (and this despite the fact that they are not mentally handicaped on other accounts).

- are perfectly aware of them but won't ever admit it because it's just not convenient to them to profess anything else but what they, for some odd reason, chose to profess.

- don't believe that rationality and logic are a valid way of analyzing the world and would rather rely on... well, whatever else (their instincts, their prejudices, the values of their socio-cultural environment, the Bible, you name it).

.

What about you? When you are trying to analyze something, build a personal opinion about something or make a point do you try and rely on facts, rationality and logic as much as you can or don't you just care at all about those factors?

.

It's a genuine question BTW, I'm really, honestly trying to understand because it really baffles me.

None of these things matter if u have a hidden agenda that u want 2 force feed 2 others.

[Edited 11/24/14 9:05am]

OP is why I try not to get into too many internet debates who just plug their ears and go "LALALLAALALALALALAA" when you try to flex some logic.

[Edited 11/24/14 9:00am]

I´m pretty open to learning new facts and willing to admit errors, and I don´t go into a debate just to prove a point or to push an agenda but unfortunately, there are too many idiots with an agenda online so I try to avoid discussions (including here on the org sometime) but then again, you can´t just ignore every single news item....but the readers´ comments are like a car crash...don´t want to look, but have to, and when I do, I feel pretty lonely because there are some incredibly stupid and hateful people out there, regardless of religion, nationality or race.

Especially when it come to political matters and religion.Most especially religion.

Love the Vulcan example that the OP used. I often look at a situation and ask myself "What would Mr.Spock say? "

I absolutely am open to the other side of the story. Heck, I was a conservative Republican for many years. Now, I vote Democrat or third party more than I vote GOP. I sure wouldn't consider myself a liberal, but I learned enough along the way to realize that, starting about 20 years ago, the GOP did not represent the conservative values I held firm to.

That experience taught me to always check the other side's sources, or research it if the other side didn't provide sources. Even today, no matter how outlandish the premise a poster may put forth, I always check their sources and/or research the issue before I comment on their position. And I always provide sources and back-up of my own, making sure that I read it first and that it is accurate. Or I make sure to include the relevant parts of their source material when explaining its flaws.

This may surprise some people, but that sort of diligence isn't very welcome on internet message boards. But that's not a function of the internet, IMO. That's more a reflection on the poster. Those that put forth fantastic theories live in a fantasy world and the last thing they want is for their world to come crumbling down.

Which is why, in my opinion, those who promote unbelievable theories constantly ignore all rational explanations, links, research articles, or probing questions when it comes to their positions.

I'd like to think of myself as a rational person. But, I also tend to cling to my already formed opinions.

I try to challenge myself though and try not to get stuck in my subjective world view.


I'm reading 'Thinking, fast and slow' at the moment. And eventhough I learned a lot of these things during my studies, I found myself "guilty" of many biases.


What I find interesting, is that when I question the official story of 9/11 or other events, I get called as a conspiracy theorist. Eventhough, I don't know what happened. I'm not convinced of any theory. I'm just convinced that what we are told, is not true. I find it interesting that there is little room for questioning. But, again, I can be rusty in my own convictions too.

In many shared attempts at reason I see (and Prince.org "debates" are quintessential of this), there seem to be two prevailing issues:

1) An almost invariable failure between the involved parties to launch from -- or commit to -- a singular point of inquiry. This creates a situation where there is an endless volleying of tangential points, qualifications, equivocations, unshared definitions and parameters, concentric circles of the actual question at hand, etc. such that a shared truth is rarely, if ever, arrived upon.

2) An equally invariable delusion that one's own position is, in fact, rational at the utter exclusion of emotion or some appeal to subjective ethic, flaws we are all too prepared to detect in -- and often only in -- the position of others.

This renders true dialectic impossible. The best the would-be wholly rational thinker can do is grasp at what rhetoric most appeals to their complex sensibilities at a given time... then attempt to employ said rhetoric to persuade others to a proximate set of assumptions... then choose to believe he/she is some logical superhero.

I neither buy this nor try this anymore. For better or worse, we live in a world built on emotion, ethic and logic -- not to mention both quantitative and qualitative learnings. I suspect the most substantive efforts to navigate that world will continue to show some oscillating deference to all of these, depending on the issue at hand.

[Edited 11/24/14 18:36pm]

dJJ said

I'm reading 'Thinking, fast and slow' at the moment. And eventhough I learned a lot of these things during my studies, I found myself "guilty" of many biases.

a fantastic book, i think. it covered a lot of ground i knew already just because i'd read other books about the kinds of things he discusses, but it's a very useful book full of great insights.

[Edited 11/24/14 16:49pm]

damosuzuki said:

dJJ said

I'm reading 'Thinking, fast and slow' at the moment. And eventhough I learned a lot of these things during my studies, I found myself "guilty" of many biases.

a fantastic book, i think. it covered a lot of ground i knew already just because i'd read other books about the kinds of things he discusses, but it's a very useful book full of great insights.

Exactly.

Eventhough you know it, you still can't help yourself.


Forces you to be scrupulous honest to yourself.

Lammastide said:

In many shared attempts at reason I see (and Prince.org "debates" are quintessential of this), there seem to be two prevailing issues:

1) An almost invariable failure between the involved parties to launch from -- or commit to -- a singular point of inquiry. This creates a situation where there is an endless volleying of tangential points, qualifications, equivocations, unshared definitions and parameters, concentric circles of the actual question at hand, etc. such that a shared truth is rarely, if ever, arrived upon.

2) An equally invariable delusion that one's own position is, in fact, rational at the utter exclusion of emotion or some appeal to subjective ethic, flaws we are all too prepared to detect in -- and often only in -- the position of others.

This renders true dialectic impossible. The best the would-be wholly rational thinker can do is grasp at what rhetoric most appeals to their complex sensibilities at a given time... then attempt to employ said rhetoric to persuade others to a proximate set of assumptions... then choose to believe he/she is some logical superhero.

I neither buy this nor try this anymore. For better or worse, we live in a world built on emotion, ethic and logic -- not to mention both quantitative and qualitative learnings. I suspect the most substantive efforts to navigate that world will continue to show some oscillating deference to all of these, depending on the issue at hand.

[Edited 11/24/14 18:36pm]

Yes, all true.


Still, I did learn a lot from the discussion over here on the org.

I adjusted some of my viewpoints due to info provided to me by orgers.

Eventhough it's a questionable and wobbly method of org-arguing, it still better than not venting any opinion and sticking to oneself. IMO, of course.

dJJ said:

Lammastide said:

In many shared attempts at reason I see (and Prince.org "debates" are quintessential of this), there seem to be two prevailing issues:

1) An almost invariable failure between the involved parties to launch from -- or commit to -- a singular point of inquiry. This creates a situation where there is an endless volleying of tangential points, qualifications, equivocations, unshared definitions and parameters, concentric circles of the actual question at hand, etc. such that a shared truth is rarely, if ever, arrived upon.

2) An equally invariable delusion that one's own position is, in fact, rational at the utter exclusion of emotion or some appeal to subjective ethic, flaws we are all too prepared to detect in -- and often only in -- the position of others.

This renders true dialectic impossible. The best the would-be wholly rational thinker can do is grasp at what rhetoric most appeals to their complex sensibilities at a given time... then attempt to employ said rhetoric to persuade others to a proximate set of assumptions... then choose to believe he/she is some logical superhero.

I neither buy this nor try this anymore. For better or worse, we live in a world built on emotion, ethic and logic -- not to mention both quantitative and qualitative learnings. I suspect the most substantive efforts to navigate that world will continue to show some oscillating deference to all of these, depending on the issue at hand.

[Edited 11/24/14 18:36pm]

Yes, all true.


Still, I did learn a lot from the discussion over here on the org.

I adjusted some of my viewpoints due to info provided to me by orgers.

Eventhough it's a questionable and wobbly method of org-arguing, it still better than not venting any opinion and sticking to oneself. IMO, of course.

Hear, hear.

I certainly try to, and try to expose myself to new things, new books, new lines of thinking that don’t just support my own pre-existing beliefs, & try to remind myself that what I think I know may be wrong, and to some extent I think that has paid some dividends. I’ve changed my mind on a fair number of things over the years, and not just trivial things, but on fairly fundamental ways I live my life and the way I look at people & animals & the world - and I hope I change my mind on lots of things in the future.

We all have blind spots, areas where we lock ourselves into beliefs based on emotion, & that’s a human feature – don’t want to call it a failing because I think that feature evolved for a reason and it sometimes produces brilliant results – but it does produce failure in thinking. I can misinterpret background noise for patterns and so on, most people believe they have above-average critical-thinking skills, we think that we hold our opinions for noble, logical reasons while those that disagree with us hold them for irrational and frivolous reasons, etc.You can overcome that by doing things like reading Daniel Kahneman’s great book & other books about science & critical thinking & so on – but I think it's worthwhile to remind ourselves that almost everyone has their own sacred cows, some of our own beliefs are expressions of the same kinds of misinterpretations of events or inflation of anomolies or whatever, and we're often as walled-in and unshakeable in those beliefs as any person who we might think of as having silly, nutty beliefs.

Ayn Rand?

Ok, I also see Vulcans being mentioned there.

Graycap23 said:

None of these things matter if u have a hidden agenda that u want 2 force feed 2 others.

[Edited 11/24/14 9:05am]

True. This happens in the academic world all the time. In my experience, it's the people with the hidden political agendas that end up drawing the p's and the q's on the chalkboards in front of people the most often. I've had some incredible bullshit been presented to me by people that have claimed to be "logicians".

Logic is contentless. You can present just about any argument in a logical manner and prove that the consequences result from the premises, but it doesn't really matter if the premises themselves are flawed. One could argue that logic is at its best when pointing out the flaws in the arguments, which is how I've tried to use it here too. With varying results.

Rationality, well, I think just about anything can be presented as a "rational" argument. It just means "reasoned" or "sane", really. However, Irrationality is a problem on a music discussion forum like this one, especially when people want to force their exclusively negative opinions on other people without having anything else to say than "I don't like it". Then they expect everyone else to agree.

I try and live my life in a logical, rational manner. The reason behind this is that in hindsight I can see very clearly that some of the bigger mistakes I've made in my life have happened when I've made very irrational decisions where the choices I've made don't stand up to being scrutinised.

The difficulty comes when the way I live my life makes other people realize they live theirs in very illogical and irrational ways and they tend to get upset about that. Even when I don't overtly point something out, they are still uncomfortable.

novabrkr said:

Ayn Rand?

Ok, I also see Vulcans being mentioned there.

Wow I've read all your replies and that's funky, thanks for such interesting contributions

@novabrkr: Ayn Rand was unfortunately far from following the precepts she taught but she plaided the cause of rationality and while she was filled with more illogical prejudices than she'd ever care to admit, her writings are still worth reading

@morningsong: my dad's not an alpha male, no, more of a weak individual in fact and a follower way more than a leader, and someone who doesn't have a single idea of his own, so he repeats like a parrot the conservative ideas he was taught as a child and keeps reading about in the books and magazines he reads, things I've tried to read and that are filled with dishonest rhetorics that he blindly adopts. He's not a bad guy, he's kinda kind in fact, but he's an idiot

logic and rationality have no place in P&R.

PurpleJedi said:

logic and rationality have no place in P&R.

Yeah but it's OK because we're in GD

PurpleJedi said:

Many people will see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear, and those who don't are often enablers. The phrase "I was wrong" has become about as common as the Jheri Curl.

I try to ignore emotions and any personal feelings or apprent personal affects... I also try to apply the "rules" as they are NOW. So I would say for the most Part I do.

I would say that often what is seen or assumed to be the ignoring of "critical analysis" or "evidence" fails to take into account that that person may have very well considered those points and discounted them for a variety of reasons.

I have seen that kind of untrue assumptions made by 9/11 thruthers. If I say I believe that basic official story I get accused of being a sheep and accused of ignoring critical analysis of the evidence.

On the contrary I considered that too. I just came to a different conclusion.

Same kind of silliness that happens when someone posts something and someone else posts some link to some third person's opinion that doesn't agree and that is so often taken as proof of being wrong and then when that poster doesn't accept the link they are called names.

Ad to that some people are a little to heavily invested in their own opinions that they take it personal when others do not agree. (a few coworkers were mad at me over the outcome of the election as if it wa my fault? As if my few votes were deciding factors. They were personally disappointed (in this case that nearly NONE of the people they voted for won and they took it out on me--the funny part was in several cases I did not vote for the winners)

databank said:

SuperSoulFighter said: