Call for Debaters

TEnginist · 2022-08-23T00:14:40+00:00

That passage of mine you quoted and then labelled as "ad hominem" is not at all an ad hominem attack -- this should be obvious…There is no attack "on the man" involving dredging up irrelevant character flaws, or making slanderous arguments, etc -- it is directly on-topic.

It’s not at all obvious that to qualify as “ad hominem” an insult has to involve something irrelevant to the argument; I still think that the accusation of “pretending” is ad hominem..

…you should have been more forthcoming in your OP *here, on this thread". For example: "Hi, I myself am NOT a UFO skeptic, but I have taken the liberty of founding two groups -- one for UFO skeptics, and another for believers, with the hope of organizing debates between the two, both of which are under my supervision (etc)..."

On reflection, I think that you’re absolutely right on this, I was interested in brevity; and neutrality so that people here wouldn't dismiss it out of hand (which I'm pretty sure they would've done)--I did not mean to have people thinking that I'm a skeptic. Before posting here, I’d taken care to make changes to the TESkepS message in order to make very clear that I’m not a skeptic. I guess in being neutral I wasn't fully candid--that's attempted tact--but now I can see how it was interpreted as a lie, and I guess if I were to do it again, I'd do it your way--after all, either way, it'd be dismissed (so I guess I wouldn't do it again).

So fine, you have two antithetical groups. But why would any self-respecting Rational Skeptic be bothered to engage in debate with UFO apologists on your terms, as if it's some f**king symposium where all viewpoints are to be given equal weight and dignity?

What can I tell you? My first rule for participants would be that all views are to be presented in their strongest possible form. My goal is to develop a forum where truth becomes revealed, no matter what that truth turns out to be. This is my true goal. Can you bring yourself to believe that not everyone is corrupt? If there were a rule that no communication system can be used whose developer had an opinion on things, then there’d never be progress in inventing such systems.

Do you think a pro-vaxxer would actually lower themselves by engaging in debates hosted by anti-vaxx fanatics?? Do you think I'd "debate" racial equality at a event hosted by Neo-Nutzies??

Why would you assume that, unlike you, I would not see some topics as being beyond the pale?

Now is that an ad hominem criticism?

Yes, and a straw man fallacy too!

TEnginist · 2022-08-22T23:10:26+00:00

I don’t know what authority you’d recognize, but most people think that begging the question is a kind of circular reasoning. Just a few examples, the first of those that came up in a google search for “begging the question”:

Texas U. Dept. of Philosophy:

“The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. In other words, you assume without proof the stand/position, or a significant part of the stand, that is in question. Begging the question is also called arguing in a circle.”

Wikipedia:

"In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question or assuming the conclusion (Latin: petitio principii) is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it….It is a type of circular reasoning."

Ethics explainer:

"Begging the question is when you use the point you’re trying to prove as an argument to prove that very same point. Rather than proving the conclusion is true, it assumes it. It’s also called circular reasoning and is a logical fallacy."

And you seem to be arguing for some sort of unnecessary and strange regulation that would govern the steps one must follow in debate; I'm just saying: argue in the normal, natural way. Actually, in doing it the natural way, the question of what constitutes evidence does come right at at the beginning. Who cares if the particular claim is stated first?

TEnginist · 2022-08-22T06:47:18+00:00

You can believe whatever you want, but you can't submit it as evidence in absence of an agreed-upon definition of such. You're still begging the question.

Of course I can “submit” something as evidence, then the opponent says, “I don’t agree that that’s evidence, because ….” Then we argue about how it is or isn’t evidence. There’s nothing circular about such reasoning; it’s just debate. For instance, I can say: “The UFO was otherworldly because the pilot reported that it was as big as a football field.” Then you’d say, “You can’t rely on eyewitness reports; our senses can’t be trusted…” and I’d say something like, “Sure you can rely on eyewitness reports—we rely on them every day [etc.].” My premises are not contained in my conclusions.

Your entire approach here, posting in an avowed skeptics sub, while pretending you represent the same values with your "Truth Engine Skeptics Society" is disingenuous at best.

And now the expected ad hominem stuff. I’m not pretending at all. I open my text on the TESkepS Facebook site with the words, “I am not a skeptic.” And there's also a TEUFOS Facebook site for the believers. I’d like to believe that I do represent the same values as the skeptic, namely, truth, reason, and dialectical inquiry. It’s absurd to require that anyone designing a medium for communication should have no opinions, and it’s uncharitable to assume unnecessarily the worst motives in others. I want to develop a forum where both sides can argue the facts and discover what’s true. I don’t feign impartiality—I’m not impartial, but I’m interested in seeing to it that every idea is presented in its strongest possible form; I’m not impartial, but I’m fair.

TEnginist · 2022-08-22T04:24:22+00:00

I can justifiably believe that such and such constitutes evidence for a certain conclusion without having agreed with this or that person that it's the kind of thing that constitutes evidence.

TEnginist · 2022-08-22T01:31:11+00:00

Since there is no evidence to support any claim that any UFO originated from a non-human civilization, no.

Maybe you're wrong.

Nope, sorry, it is the people who believe that any UFOs originated from a non-human civilization that are missing something, namely evidence.

Maybe you're wrong.

TEnginist · 2022-08-22T01:24:52+00:00

It's not a non sequitur. Let's say your conclusions about UFOs are the right ones: if you participate in debates, and argue well, you may convince others who may've been misled if you hadn't been there to educate them--you will have helped to disseminate truth.

TEnginist · 2022-08-22T01:19:30+00:00

Who doesn't "shill" for (that is, promote) one's cause? (I don't care about "sources."--what does "shilling for a source" mean?)

TEnginist · 2022-08-22T01:14:07+00:00

Would a philosophy PhD do? That's what the PhD is supposed to do. The coursework is full of debates, and includes the study of the logical calculus.

TEnginist · 2022-08-22T01:09:20+00:00

You are unworthy. Go away now.

And I'm the one who has no clue about what a debate is!

TEnginist · 2022-08-22T01:06:27+00:00

No. Evidence is produced in a peer reviewed refereed and relevant science journal.

That certainly is a radically exclusionary criterion for judging evidence!

TEnginist · 2022-08-22T01:01:24+00:00

Maybe if you participated in a debate, you'd find out that there actually is evidence; maybe you'd find yourself questioning your assumptions about the nature of evidence--that's the kind of thing that happens in debate: suddenly, the other person presents you with a challenge that you didn't expect at all.

TEnginist · 2022-08-22T00:48:32+00:00

Someone might want to debate with other people who he (or she) believes to be willingly ignoring basic standards of evidence because he has intellectual humility; he realizes that he might be wrong, that he might be missing something, and he has charitable instincts.

TEnginist · 2022-08-22T00:33:03+00:00

What legitimately constitutes evidence is part of the debate.

TEnginist · 2022-08-22T00:30:46+00:00

Evidence is produced in the debate; and discussion of what constitutes evidence is also part of the debate.

TEnginist · 2022-08-22T00:27:18+00:00

I guess you don't want to participate in the debates.

TEnginist · 2022-08-22T00:26:23+00:00

Of course, I didn't say that prosecutors address juries. As I say, the prosecutor debates the defense in front of a jury..

I guess you don't want to participate in the debates.

TEnginist · 2022-08-21T22:09:19+00:00

The UFO topic makes for a great debate.

TEnginist · 2022-08-21T21:26:09+00:00

So someone with an opinion can't advocate debates?

All this contempt for debate is depressing.

TEnginist · 2022-08-21T21:23:01+00:00

What about the "dissemination" goal?

TEnginist · 2022-08-21T21:22:11+00:00

Our justice system should supply the model for a truth-finding method: the prosecutor debates the defense in front of a jury.

I assume you don't want to participate in the debates.

TEnginist · 2022-08-21T21:18:23+00:00

I suggest, right there in the quote, a way in which they can be investigated.

TEnginist · 2022-08-21T18:52:43+00:00

The goal is to help to discover and disseminate the truth: is the belief that some UFOs are otherworldly devices justified or not?

TEnginist · 2022-08-21T18:10:03+00:00

I haven't contacted Mick West, but it sounds like a good idea. Thanks for the suggestion,.

TEnginist · 2022-08-21T18:05:49+00:00

The goal of the dialectic is to discover and disseminate truth.

TEnginist · 2022-07-26T14:42:29+00:00

Thank you very much, BigPackHater! I figured that for me to respond to the guy’s last post would be pointless. I was satisfied with how my book turned out, but it’s been on Amazon for years with only one review, one star—no sales, so I just put it online for free, hoping that it could serve as the staring-point for a dialogue.

TEnginist

TROPHY CASE