Re: Debates & Debating
From: Acme Diagnostics (LFinezapthis_at_partpostmark.net)
Date: 09/13/04
- Next message: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: [|-|erc] Re: [PO] Halting Problem Final Conclusion"
- Previous message: Milan: "Re: @ KANT GLOSSARY"
- In reply to: Immortalist: "Re: Debates & Debating"
- Next in thread: Tim: "Re: Debates & Debating"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 13 Sep 2004 17:24:07 -0500
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Tim" <abc@abc.abc> wrote in message
>news:_7adneH8qbVVP9jcRVn-qg@edaptivity.com...
>
>> Who is Larry?
>
>Probably one of the people that are on the bulleton board for the page
>http://www.truthtree.com/Debating/index.html
This is a totally weird coincidence. My name is Larry, and I have
posted in this same thread, and I've even linked to my bullet
list of "ways to promote objectivity in reasoning" similar in
form to the below list apparently suggested by another "Larry."
Some of the below items are even vaguely similar to some items on
my list. I don't believe they are paraphrases of my items, but a
few could possibly be. On the off-chance that they *are*
paraphrases, I disavow them, but without prejudice to content.
My list is to promote objectivity (or "find errors") in reasoning
as a process of solitary analysis, with "arguing" as only one
useful tool for that purpose. That's not the same as debate
proper, though they are coincident in some respects.
Moreover, I've posted lots of dogma about logical argumentation
in sci.logic (and other Usenet groups), and thus similar to the
long dogma on "debate" posted by Immortalist in this thread
topic. I offer no opinion on his content.
I am not the same Larry as below, and I am not the author of that
list. My nic always begins with "Acme ", currently "Acme
Diagnostics," and my adopted Usenet last name is Fine (as in
Larry Fine of the Stooges).
I have nothing whatsoever to do with the above linked site
(truthtree.com) or any similar site. <twilight zone theme> But I
also had a good friend who was a Harvard PhdPhil, another
weird coincidence, who I referenced in the below book.
My list originally appeared in a copyrighted book I wrote a while
ago under contract to a subsidiary of a well-known American
publisher, but which subsidiary went bankrupt when it was in
galleys. However, the publisher sent lots of manuscript copies
out to parties unknown to me for peer review, i.e. the
information was distributed in the field. I'm updating that book
among 10 other things on Usenet including a related AI project,
and the expanded list has only been posted for reference in
sci.logic here:
http://google.com/groups?selm=4100b4e7$0$69348$45beb828@newscene.com
Note that it is quite different from the below list.
My apologies to the other Larry, whose list appears below:
Larry
>>> There are undoubtedly more points to be made here. Suggestions will be
>>> gratefully received. Larry has made the following suggestions:
>>>
>>> * Apply the scientific method.
>>> * Cite relevant personal experience.
>>> * Be polite.
>>> * Organize your response. (Beginning, middle, end.)
>>> * Treat people as individuals. (Not everyone who is pro-choice is also
>>> anti-gun.)
>>> * Cite sources for statistics and studies used.
>>> * Literacy works. Break posts into sentences and paragraphs.
>>> * Read the post you are responding to.
>>> * Stay open to learning.
>>>
- Next message: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: [|-|erc] Re: [PO] Halting Problem Final Conclusion"
- Previous message: Milan: "Re: @ KANT GLOSSARY"
- In reply to: Immortalist: "Re: Debates & Debating"
- Next in thread: Tim: "Re: Debates & Debating"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
