|
Modes of Resoning- could it help us (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| StereoPrincess |
| quote: | Originally posted by dallastar
I took the course of "sexuality of life"....
|
hee hee. i found this post really damn funny dallas. |
|
|
| MattVagrant |
Interesting topic ;)
Looking at it from a leyman's perspective, it is very easy to notice that no one will ever concede anything in an online argument. I find this particularly peculiar. Perhaps people are so ridiculously hegemonous as a result of public, online conversation being far more impersonal (hegemony is the favouring of one's own opinion as 'right' because it is one's own opinion, without actually considering that there may be merit in other alternative perspectives). Perhaps it is the public nature of the forum that acts to deter concessions. Whatever it is, there is rarely such a thing as 'online dialectic' (dialectic being, vaguely, a productively argumentative exchange between two or more parties in order to arrive at a common soultion).
Myself, I would explain this very peculiar phenomenon of unabated online hegemony by comparing it to a couple of Louis Althusser's notions on ideology. First, as Althusser would say, it is important to note that everyone is in ideology (ie. they exist in their own little world, and will not consider alternate legitimacies). Secondly, only a rare few know that they are in ideology. And, because it is necessary for one to understand that one is in ideology (and not unequivocal truth, for such a thing does not exist) before one can productively engage in dialectical conversation, the common case would naturally be one in which dialectic is not possible because of its participants' hegemonies. This is our problem.
Translation: there are far too many idiots who think they know what is what, but don't actually know what is what, and just strut (what the !). And because it's a public, online conversation, just about everyone is strutting... |
|
|
| halo20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MattVagrant
Translation: there are far too many idiots who think they know what is what, but don't actually know what is what, and just strut (what the !). And because it's a public, online conversation, just about everyone is strutting... |
lmao...awesome. Using an example from the dance music domain is quite effective. |
|
|
| d!abolic |
| The one thing that would help most guys around here is an injection of Testosterone. All their whiny girly behavior would vanish. |
|
|
| voodoochild |
Matt - I like the last part of your post, Funny enuff that the last post on this thread gave me a prime example of your last point. Its amazing how opinions can come across as judgement calls.
sigh.... I think I just gave up on the topic.
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| Matt, I will always concede to all points you make. |
|
|
| Xavier Moriarty |
| quote: | | Translation: there are far too many idiots who think they know what is what, but don't actually know what is what, and just strut (what the !). |
i totally agree |
|
|
| The Highroller |
| "You are only entitled to an opinion only if you are open to changing it" |
|
|
| MarkT |
aw come on...who didn't know I was going to add my 2 cents to this thread :p
| quote: | Originally posted by The Highroller
"You are only entitled to an opinion only if you are open to changing it" |
I absolutely agree!!! I think most people, myself included, would do well to keep this in mind.
| quote: | Originally posted by voodoochild
I am seeing many threads, while good intentioned, fizzle or breakup and worse still- some not until egos are bruised esp. here in TOTA..:p
I took this course "Modes of Reasoning" a while back at University and wondered if anyone else has or is taking it. Lately, I find myself rummaging thru my notes on this course and capturing examples of certain fallacies that occur in some arguments on these threads that die out. I see fallacies that others create and yes! I am aware of some of those I contribute to as well.....I mean really, everyone should be allowed some room to err as we are human after all :D
lately tho we seem to have been caught in let's face it - a ton of mindless dribble. If we could apply some, if not all of the rules for arguments discussed in the text for this course to some of our threads-posts, perhaps we could all learn a thing or two through arguing systematically.
Its a thought I couldn't resist sharing.
Inputs welcome. |
Ah, Neeta...wise words!
I've said something similar here and in other forums as well. Many people do not know how to argue or even what makes up a *valid* argument. The number of logical fallacies I read in virtually every thread containing a debate of any kind boggles my mind!!! That's not to say anyone is dumb or their opinions don't matter...just that there's a signficant difference between presenting a valid argument, an educated opinion, and a mere opinion in general.
A course such as Modes of Reasoning (or one on classical logic or argumentation theory) would be invaluable to anyone who engages in any form of debate, writes essays/reports, etc.
Unfortunately, for example, people embelish or exaggerate their arguments *cough*jayx1andshadowolf*cough* with clever, loaded words like "nazi" which conjure up completely irrelevant imagery. This is effective speaking/writing in that it may sway people, but in reality such a tactic adds NOTHING to the logical strength and validity of their position. Effective speaking and persuasion are not the same as presenting a strong argument. Ask a politician if they'd rather present a logically sound position or a fallacious one that sways the people, lol. They'll happily be "illogical" at the expense of garnering support. It's unfortunate, but true.
To be fair, few people likely enjoy "losing" an argument or admitting that they were wrong. One would be hard pressed to find threads where many people even admit that they didn't appreciate the issue from another perspective (I'm guilty of that myself from time to time).
Ultimately, IMHO, the purpose of engaging in an argument ought to be either to gain knowledge yourself or to impart your knowledge on others who hold a false opinion or position. This is NOT to be confused with pushing one's mere OPINION on others or trying simply to "win" the argument at all costs. I think debates here would be more productive if people remembered this and also that having an opinion does not equal having knowledge. |
|
|
| The Highroller |
| That's the problem I find with most people. Arguing is not about winning, it's about using 2 different stand points to gain a clearer understanding of the truth. Most people "argue" just to stroke their ego. |
|
|
| DJ_Elyot |
Maybe somebody should start a thread where we discuss logic. Newbs could read it and learn a thing or two about how to argue. There are lots of links and stuff too out there.
Here's a syllogism for you all to disprove... find the logical fallacy:
I am nobody.
Nobody is perfect.
Therefore, I am perfect. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
Unfortunately, for example, people embelish or exaggerate their arguments *cough*jayx1andshadowolf*cough* with clever, loaded words like "nazi" which conjure up completely irrelevant imagery. This is effective speaking/writing in that it may sway people, but in reality such a tactic adds NOTHING to the logical strength and validity of their position. |
It doesn't matter how strong or weak your position is if you can't get your point across to other people. Using words like Nazi to describe militant type feminists as "fem nazis" for example is definately an exaggeration but it's an effective way to get the point across. We are all guilty of using loaded words every day. The art of debate is not only to discuss the topics at hand but to try and have people relate to what you are saying and sometimes the most effective way is to use such words.
A clear example today is using the fatboy slim qoute to simplify a complex explanation.
Using Nazi to relate to people illustrates how extreme you would think the feminists were. If you take the word nazi in it's literal form then you are guilty of not recognizing a simile or metaphor. |
|
|
|
|
