Re: Debates & Debating (2)

From: Bob's Boyfriend (together_at_wyoming.com)
Date: 09/25/04 

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 14:15:17 -0400

In article <OdOdnRKFGsU6McjcRVn-hQ@comcast.com>,
 "Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Tim" <abc@abc.abc> wrote @edaptivity.com...
> >
> > Just the link please maam. The fact that I called you on it proves, beyond
> > any doubt, that I am not easily persuaded.
>
> On Debating
>
> If we don't want to live in a dictatorship, we must be vigilant to preserve
> our
> freedoms. If we wish to preserve our freedoms, we must be informed on the
> issues. Being informed on the issues requires that we become acquainted with
> alternative points of view.

Could you provide more detail here? I am not seeing the logic that
you've applied.

For example, how does knowing about multiple methods of delivering
health care to a population ensure that a dictatorship doesn't appear?

How doe knowing recidivism rates and theories of crime, or why people
are homeless prevent a dictatorship from emerging?

These are some of the political issue and I'm not clear on learning more
about them prevents a dictatorship from happening.

> The history of the development of civilization
> can
> be seen as the history of debates on issues. In democratic societies, there
> must
> be public debating. Newspapers have served this purpose and still do to some
> extent in this country. However, we seem to have lost awareness of the
> importance of debating since the days of Thomas Paine. The sixty-second
> sound
> bite has created the illusion that the important issues are all brief and
> cut-and-dried. The importance of debating issues is fading from the public
> consciousness. One principle aim of The Truth Tree is to increase awareness
> of
> the importance of rational debating. But constructive debating is an art.
> With
> all this in mind, the following suggestions are offered.
>
> Clarity: Avoid use of terms which can be interpreted differently by
> different
> readers. When we are talking to people who substantially agree with us we
> can
> use such terms as "rednecks" or "liberals" and feel reasonably sure that we
> will
> be understood. But in a debate, we are talking to people who substantially
> disagree with us and they are likely to put a different interpretation on
> such
> words.
>
> Evidence: Quoting an authority is not evidence. Quoting a majority opinion
> is
> not evidence. Any argument that starts with, "According to Einstein..." is
> not
> based on objective evidence. Any argument that starts with, "Most biologists
> believe..." is not based on objective evidence. Saying, "The Bible says..."
> is
> not evidence. Authorities and majorities can be wrong and frequently have
> been.
>
> Emotionalism: Avoid emotionally charged words--words that are likely to
> produce
> more heat than light. Certainly the racial, ethnic, or religious hate words
> have
> no place in rational debating. Likewise, avoid argumentum ad hominem.
> Personal
> attacks on your opponent are an admission of intellectual bankruptcy. Also,
> slurs
> directed at groups with whom your opponent is identified are usually
> nonproductive. Try to keep attention centered on the objective problem
> itself.
> There is a special problem when debating social, psychological, political, or
> religious ideas because a person's theories about these matters presumably
> have
> some effect on his own life style. It is unlikely that in an argument over
> the
> existence of quarks an opponent's sexual behavior would be brought up and it
> would be easier to keep attention centered on the problem itself than if the
> argument was about the importance of the family or whether a liberal or
> conservative position was preferrable in a political debate. A suggested
> solution
> is to make a general statement rather than one referring specifically to the
> opponent. In other words, rather than saying "and that's why you are such an
> undisciplined wreck" say, "a person adopting your position is, I believe,
> likely
> to become an undisciplined wreck because ..."
>
> "The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's
> time."
> --- Richard Nixon
>
> A (Short) List of emotionally charged words and phrases:
>
>
> * Liberal!
>
> * Tax and spend!
>
> * Fascist!
>
> * Politically correct!
>
> * (The opponent) is spouting! his (whatever)!
>
> * All pejorative names for races, sexual preference, ethnic groups, or
> religions
>
> * Baby killer!
>
> * Socialist!
>
> * Hippy!
>
> * Druggy!
>
> * Saying that your opponent "trots out" his argument
>
> Causality: Avoid the blunder of asserting a causal relationship with the
> popular
> fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc which declares that because some event A
> happened and immediately afterward event B happened that event A was the
> cause of
> event B. (I knew someone whose car stalled on the way to work. She would
> get
> out and open the hood and slam it and then the car would start. Singing a
> song
> would have been just as effective to allow time for a vapor lock to
> dissipate!)
> Also avoid the popular fallacy that correlation proves causation. People who
> own
> Cadillacs, on average, have higher incomes than people who don't. This does
> not
> mean that if we provided people with Cadillacs that they would have higher
> incomes.
>
> Innuendo: Innuendo is saying something pejorative about your opponent without
> coming right out and saying it but by making more or less veiled allusions to
> some circumstance, rumor, or popular belief. If you want to see some
> excellent
> examples of innuendo, watch Rush Limbaugh. Politicians are, unfortunately,
> frequently guilty of using innuendo. It is an easy way to capitalize on
> popular
> prejudices without having to make explicit statements which might be
> difficult or
> impossible to defend against rational attack.
>
> Be sure of your facts. What is the source of your information? If it is a
> newspaper or a magazine, are you sure that the information hasn't been
> "slanted"
> to agree with that publication's political bias? Where crucial facts are
> concerned, it is best to check with more than one source. Often
> international
> publications will give you a different perspective than your hometown
> newspaper.
> Check to see whether the book you are using was published by a regular
> publishing
> company or whether it was published by some special interest group like the
> John
> Birch Society or a religious organization. These books cannot be trusted to
> present unbiased evidence since their motivation for publishing is not truth
> but
> rather the furtherance of some political or religious view.
> Could there be a bias here?
>
> Understand your opponents' arguments. It is good practice to argue with a
> friend
> and take a position with which you do not agree. In this way you may
> discover
> some of the assumptions your opponents are making which will help you in the
> debate. Remember that everybody thinks that his position is the right one,
> and
> everybody has his reasons for thinking so.
>
> Do not impute ridiculous or malevolent ideas to your opponent. An example of
> this is the rhetorical statement, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" This
> imputes or presupposes that your opponent has beaten his wife. One frequently
> sees references by conservative speakers and writers to the idea that gay
> activists want "special privileges." This would be ridiculous if it were
> true. It
> isn't true, but speaking as if it were true and well known to all is
> egregiously
> unfair to listeners or readers who may not be well informed. It is probably
> always wise to treat your opponent with respect, even if he doesn't deserve
> it.
> If he doesn't deserve respect, this will probably soon become obvious enough.
> There are all sorts of subtle ways to express hostility toward your opponent
> and
> it is almost always unwise to give in to them. That doesn't mean that you
> can't
> vividly and saliently present your criticisms of your opponent's beliefs or
> behavior. But beware of phraseology which simply makes him look ridiculous.
> An
> example of this came up recently. I was criticizing Pat Robertson's apparent
> belief that God punishes people who do not behave as he wants them to by
> sending
> storms or natural disasters of various kinds or even terrorists. I do think
> this
> is a childish and obviously invalid belief. Saying so is not a violation of
> any
> of the principles enumerated here. But I found myself saying that Pat
> Robertson's
> "Big Friend in the Sky" would do such and so. This is objectionable because
> it
> ridicules. It isn't as straightforward as simply saying that in my opinion
> Pat
> Robertson's belief is ridiculous. Another example is to say that nudists
> "prance
> around" in the nude. Of course it's inaccurate, but it ridicules and
> denigrates
> as well and shouldn't be allowed in a rational debate.
>
> Regression to the mean: Another source of error which occurs very frequently
> is
> the failure to take into account regression to the mean. This is a bit
> technical,
> but it is very important, especially in any kind of social or psychological
> research which depends upon statistical surveys or even experiments which
> involve
> statistical sampling. Rather than a general statement of the principle (which
> becomes more and more unintelligible as the statement becomes more and more
> rigorous) an example will be used. Let's consider intelligence testing.
> Perhaps
> we have a drug that is supposed to raise the IQ of mentally retarded kids. So
> we
> give a thousand intelligence tests and select the 30 lowest scoring
> individuals.
> We then give these low scoring kids our drug and test them again. We find
> that
> there has been an increase in the average of their IQ scores. Is this
> evidence
> that the drug increased the IQ? Not necessarily! Suppose we want to show that
> smoking marijuana lowers the IQ. Well, we take the 30 highest scoring kids in
> our
> sample and give them THC and test them again. We find a lower average IQ. Is
> this
> evidence that marijuana lowers the IQ? Not necessarily! Any statistician
> knows
> that if you make some kind of a measurement of some attribute of a large
> sample
> of people and then select the highest and lowest scoring individuals and make
> the
> same measurement again, the high scoring group will have a lower average
> score
> and the low scoring group will have a higher average score than they did the
> first time. This is called "regression to the mean" and it is a perfectly
> universal statistical principle. It has nothing to do with what is being
> measured. It works with molecules and atoms just as it does with juvenile
> delinquents and schizophrenics. What is going on here? The whole thing is
> based
> on the fact that when we measure something there is always a bit of luck
> involved. Sometimes this is called "chance". Statisticians call it "error".
> There
> are two kinds of luck: good and bad. Let's say you take an IQ test and score
> 130.
> That's pretty good, considering that the average IQ is 100. What part of your
> score is luck? Well, there's no way of knowing this, but we know that some
> luck
> was involved. Is it more likely that your true IQ is 129 but that you had
> enough
> good luck to make it 130, or that your true IQ is 131 and that you had enough
> bad
> luck to make it 130? Well, there are a lot more people whose true IQ is 129
> than
> there are people whose true IQ is 131, so there are more ways to get 130
> because
> of good luck than there are ways to make 130 because of bad luck. If you have
> understood this, go to the head of the class! But even if you haven't
> understood
> it completely, remember it. Failure to understand it has probably cost us
> billions of dollars. Another important fact about regression to the mean is
> that
> the less reliable the measurement is the more regression will occur.
>
> 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.
>
> And DWA has reminded us that Carl Sagan had a "baloney detection kit." Here
> it
> is:
>
>
> * Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
>
> * Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable
> proponents of
> all points of view.
>
> * Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no
> "authorities").
>
> * Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea
> that
> caught your fancy.
>
> * Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
>
> * Quantify, wherever possible.
>
> * If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
>
> * "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data
> equally
> well choose the simpler.
>
> * Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified
> (shown
> to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, is it testable? Can
> others
> duplicate the experiment and get the same result?
>
> Additional issues are :
>
> * Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments
> where
> the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
>
> * Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.
>
> Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric:
>
> * Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
>
> * Argument from "authority".
>
> * Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision
> maker
> by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
>
> * Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
>
> * Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
>
> * Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is
> phrased).
>
> * Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
>
> * Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from
> inadequate
> sample sizes).
>
> * Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower
> expressing
> astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have
> below
> average intelligence!)
>
> * Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios
> but
> scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because
> they
> are not "proved").
>
> * Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
>
> * Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" -
> confusion of cause and effect.
>
> * Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an
> immovable object?).
>
> * Excluded middle -considering only the two extremes in a range of
> possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
>
> * Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue
> fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
>
> * Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle -unwarranted extrapolation
> of
> the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
>
> * Confusion of correlation and causation.
>
> * Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier
> to
> attack.
>
> * Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
>
> * Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police
> action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art
> of
> politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have
> become odious to the public" .
>
> It has been pointed out by various participants that following these
> recommendations to the letter might make for dull reading. The idea is that a
> little invective is a good thing because it adds spice. An interesting
> example of
> this occurred in a nationally televised debate between Dan Quayle and Lloyd
> Benson. Quayle had just remarked on some similarities between himself and
> Jack
> Kennedy. Benson said, "I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of
> mine.
> But I can tell you one thing, Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy!" This was of
> course an argumentum ad hominem of the first water. But I would like to point
> out
> that a political debate and a scientific debate are two quite different
> things.
> But to concede the point somewhat I have a suggestion. Perhaps we could agree
> to
> divide our debating messages into two parts. In the first part it would be
> illegal to mention the opponent at all. The word "you" would be forbidden.
> Then
> the second part would allow judicious use of personal remarks. Writing a
> debate
> without using "you" is a very interesting exercise. I urge everyone to give
> it a
> try!
>
> (Incidentally, the fugue you have been listening to if you clicked on the
> icon at
> the top of the page was chosen because a fugue can be thought of as a debate.
> In
> this particular fugue there are three combatants represented by the three
> voices.
> There are notable discords sprinkled thoughout the fugue, but all is harmony
> at
> the end!)
>
> http://www.truthtree.com/debates.shtml
>
>

Quantcast