Argue what is true.

[Brick-top]

In my absence, I did a small experiment over online debates.

First:
I argued a point that myself and the opponent agreed with.

Second:
I argued a point neither myself nor the opponent supported.

Third:
I argued a point I didn't support, but the opponent did.

Forth:
I argued a point I supported but the opponent did not.

What I found was worrying but slightly obvious. Sometimes most people will happily support and search for things that already supports their views (I'm guilty of this). However when it comes to things they do not agree with, they will raise a flag of scepticism, criticism and questioning. Sometimes people will just inherently ignore or dismiss it. (and guilty of this as well). But some are different, if they find something that supports their views but seems odd, they can dismiss it if logic or evidence doesn't support it. In more than one occasion I found some people will cherry pick or delve into a plethora of logical fallacies to make everything fit. I even found a small group that will just make up numbers, quotes, studies, research etc to make it appear their stance is right.

So I have a challenge for you, pick something you already agree with (Religion, Politics, health etc) and argue AGAINST it. Try to find evidence suggesting what you think to be true is false. Don't use the usual sites you normally go on to. Be sceptical on what you think is right and ask is there anything you don't know about the subject that could be relevant.

Doing this, it is possible to know a lot more about the subject you're studying and it could cause more open-mindedness.

[aviewaskewed]

I agree this is a great tactic. We did this in an ethics class of mine once. People were broken into groups and assigned two sides of a debate. My group got the position we didn't agree with, but we argued it very well (the instructor told us that, I'm not just kissing mine own butt).

Sadly we lost...because the issue was a law banning sodomy...and our judges didn't support it. So even though the other side had fairly flimsy arguments, the fact that they were arguing from the side the judges agreed with probably cost us the win. Just a good example I thought of how easy it can be to get complacent about your points and argue the wrong thing, or the right thing in the wrong way and be rewarded because those around you agree.

[poxpower]

At 10/3/09 11:58 PM, Brick-top wrote:

So I have a challenge for you, pick something you already agree with (Religion, Politics, health etc) and argue AGAINST it.

You know, you eventually have to do that and I've been burned SO MANY TIMES.
You read this stuff and it sounds SO CONVINCING. Then you listen to expert advice and you realize that you were straight-out LIED TO.

The 9/11 videos for instance, Bigfoot etc. etc.

You listen to the Bigfoot people, and they will tell you they have HAIR. They have EXPERTS who say that THERE'S NO WAY A HUMAN COULD MAKE THOSE FOOTPRINTS. They have shit, sound recordings etc And on it goes. Man I know the perfect website to exemplify this: http://www.s8int.com/dna1.html

Pages and pages and pages of this stuff. Presented in an extremely convincing manner if you don't know anything about this.

I would say that the telltale sign of a conspiracy nut is that they have TONS and TONS of bad evidence, and no single piece of good evidence. Those are the people who will never argue ONE point, because they will lose it. So they flood you. They'll show you 1000 ghost photos and give you quotes from 200 eminent scientists about XYZ but will never linger on any single piece of evidence.

So yeah. Wait how many times have I said this now?
Bacon.
Bacon times.

[Bacchanalian]

I don't think I've ever actually done something quite as direct as what you propose, but I have isolated, and argued for, premises that lay within a path toward a conclusion I didn't agree with. I haven't done it recently. The last time I remember doing it was in opposition to you I think.

[SteveGuzzi]

Isn't this what the whole "devil's advocate" thing is about?

...

Anyway, I remember in debate and mock-trial classes back in the day we had to do this all the time. They assign you a side to argue for, and whether you agree with that side or not you have to argue it the best you can. I never did it competitive though like in those serious debate team things where these cats talk a friggin mile a minute.

In general it's always good to go back and re-evaluate your own position on things and exactly WHY you accept them as true or false... like, if it were someone else giving you those arguments and reasons would you actually buy them? It's probably why I'm ambivalent towards a whole lot of things... which in-itself I'm not so sure is a good thing or bad thing (LOL "I'm ambivalent concerning my own ambivalence").

[RightWingGamer]

@ brick-top

can you give me the links to those debates? i'd like to study them.

[Smokey651]

Actually, I would advise people be careful before doing this. You definitely want to make sure you are ready to change your mind about the subject.

Doing this made me turn from Christian to Atheist... about 6 months ago.
But if you are someone who wants to know the truth about anything and everything, and not afraid of how people will look at you for having differing opinions. Then DEFINITELY go for it! :D

[Ericho]

At 10/4/09 03:02 PM, Smokey651 wrote: Doing this made me turn from Christian to Atheist... about 6 months ago.

Sometimes it's not so much of a matter of what everyone thinks is true but more of what makes sense. Religion (or at least just believing in God) may be viewed as not making any sense and something that can't be understand but when we look at the alternative (no God) some of us realize it is even sillier.

[Bacchanalian]

At 10/4/09 06:48 PM, Ericho wrote: even sillier.

Who do you think you are? The zombie corpse of shaggytheclown? This isn't even a religion thread.

[Elfer]

I was actually going to make a topic about this. People in general are not critical enough of their own beliefs.

If you want to be right about stuff, you have to actively ask yourself "Does this make sense? Are there reasons that I could be wrong?" on a fairly regular basis. On top of that, and this is the one people have the most trouble with, you have to actually be willing to change your views based on evidence.

[Brick-top]

At 10/4/09 01:23 AM, poxpower wrote: So yeah. Wait how many times have I said this now?

If I were to be honest, I have fallen prey to something far worse.

When I first obtained the internet it was a world that I barely knew of and my naive mentality was obvious. In the days that 150mb of ram was high technology and Computer screen were blocks (and I still have that computer collecting dust) I delved into this new and exciting world.

I stumbled upon a website with documentaries (usually things broadcast on discovery, animal planet, history channels etc).

I found a Kent Hovind presentation, being a curious soul I decided to watch the whole 2 hour video (and since it's not copyrighted it was perfectly legal for me to do so).

I believed every little thing that man said. With his "PHD" and "15 years of teaching highschool science" I was hooked. I didn't want to believe it, but I did, it seemed infallible.

Months past, the video slipped my mind but I had adopted some of what Kent said into my thinking. But my interest in science (mainly biology and cosmology) became overwhelming. My teachers would tell me to "speak up" and "talk louder" when asking questions or having discussions about the subjects at hand, while everyone else was talking about their social lives.

I started noticing contradictions with what was said in the video and in the over simplified text books. I wanted to know more about what was going on here. So I jumped in head first. I learned more and more about how 'this' and 'that' worked. Eventually I came to the conclusion Kent was wrong about many scientific studies. But why? Why would anyone present themselves to a group of people and distort facts? Then with a poor school standard education on theology I stumbled upon Creationism.

And since then I've just been updating my knowledge on Science and Religion. I can't believe I was sucked in to his fallacy drowned, lying, deceitful tactics as if my head wasn't screwed on straight.

A little knowledge used wisely has a far greater effect than immense knowledge used carelessly.

[RubberTrucky]

In religion debates I've always tended to aid the religion cause, wheras I am far not that religious and I do believe in science and logic more than anything else.

On aside note, I've been doubting the things people claim sometimes about scientific studies etcetera. For example, I somehow take it at face value if a doctor tells me I should have a vaccine to protect me against certain illnesses. But maybe the whole vaccination bussiness is made up by farmaceutical corporations to make money. I mean, I never got any illnesses or had people getting ill by a disease they should have been vaccinated for. How can I be sure vaccination, or any other medical truth is in fact true and not made up for money...

[Elfer]

At 10/8/09 04:18 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: I mean, I never got any illnesses or had people getting ill by a disease they should have been vaccinated for. How can I be sure vaccination, or any other medical truth is in fact true and not made up for money...

Perhaps because of impartial studies conducted by university researchers, or the prevalence of diseases and subsequent decline after the introduction of vaccination?

[RubberTrucky]

At 10/8/09 04:30 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 10/8/09 04:18 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: I mean, I never got any illnesses or had people getting ill by a disease they should have been vaccinated for. How can I be sure vaccination, or any other medical truth is in fact true and not made up for money...

Perhaps because of impartial studies conducted by university researchers,

Even then, can we trust universities who are payed to produce prosperous results?

or the prevalence of diseases and subsequent decline after the introduction of vaccination?

Can we trust that this decline is due to vaccination and not progress in hygiene matters or merely evolution?

[FUNKbrs]

At 10/4/09 01:01 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: Isn't this what the whole "devil's advocate" thing is about?

...

PWNT.

I invented this shit.

Thanks for joining the club, Bricky.

[TheShrike]

At 10/9/09 05:55 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 10/4/09 01:01 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: Isn't this what the whole "devil's advocate" thing is about?

PWNT.

Is the DAG even active at this point?

[satanbrain]

its hard having schizophrenia.

[Elfer]

At 10/8/09 04:41 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 10/8/09 04:30 PM, Elfer wrote: Perhaps because of impartial studies conducted by university researchers,

Even then, can we trust universities who are payed to produce prosperous results?

Yes, because that's the whole point of tenured researchers and impartial research in general. Universities receive grant money to conduct research, not to come back with certain results.

Also, are you aware that your argument implies intentionally unethical behaviour on the part of everyone who has ever done vaccination research? That seems like a much more mind-boggling and unlikely scenario than "vaccinations actually work."

or the prevalence of diseases and subsequent decline after the introduction of vaccination?

Can we trust that this decline is due to vaccination and not progress in hygiene matters or merely evolution?

Yes, the downturn is sharp and quite significant. Substantial hygiene developments were not made at the same time as the introduction of vaccinations, and evolution doesn't work that quickly.

[Elfer]

Also, in case you're interested in a source for some of this information, smallpox would be a good case study. Here's a whole thing about the eradication of smallpox.

Smallpox was wiped out following the introduction of the vaccine, and it happened in different years in different countries. Countries that were vaccinated earlier wiped it out earlier, countries that vaccinated later wiped it out later. It would be absolutely baffling if we were to actually dig up a factor in this more significant than vaccination.

[RubberTrucky]

I will agree with you on vaccinations, though. But the point is to argue something you DON'T believe in. The fact for cynics still remains is to what extend you can fully trust scientific progress as it is public or displayed. Do all antibiotics work as the prescription tells you and if a dietary producer says that his products are tested and approved by independent laboratories, should you believe him? Does that fat burning pill really work, as proven in the proposing cases,...

The fact remains that it is unlikely you are going to retest the theories and check whether they fit or not. So you have no choice then to take the theory at face value.

[AKACCMIOF]

OK, here goes.

God exists; he's got to. We have Him wired into our brain! All the correct prophesies, all the disproved atheists.

Let's really think about.

Physics and logic tells us nothing can be created or destroyed, only transferred.

Then why is there anything?

There must be something outside physics and logic, therefor rendering ANY logical argument useless on the matter of omniscience/ omnipotence/ anything HUGE. By HUGE I mean OMNIPRESENT.

But all religions demonstrate a gravitation to god. He fulfills many emotionally, aside from the odd crazed nut.

So, reason is useless at disproving it, it brings many ie: Mother Theresa, Sir John Templeton the will to do incredible charitable thing, and whats more, there's even some science supporting it.

NOT ONE WORD OF THE ABOVE IS TRUE

[Elfer]

At 10/16/09 02:00 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: I will agree with you on vaccinations, though. But the point is to argue something you DON'T believe in.

Not really. The point is to not "believe" in anything and try to prove everything wrong, and then once you figure out all the wrong stuff you're usually left with the right stuff.

The fact for cynics still remains is to what extend you can fully trust scientific progress as it is public or displayed. Do all antibiotics work as the prescription tells you and if a dietary producer says that his products are tested and approved by independent laboratories, should you believe him? Does that fat burning pill really work, as proven in the proposing cases,...

Easy questions. Anything peer reviewed is generally good and can usually be taken at face value. If someone claims independent review, they should be able to verify it, and as for fat burning pills, there's a case where you want to look for independent review yourself.

The fact remains that it is unlikely you are going to retest the theories and check whether they fit or not. So you have no choice then to take the theory at face value.

Well, that's exactly the point of having lots of scientists and a peer review process. Most actual scientists enjoy calling bullshit on bad science, so you're pretty safe in terms of predominant scientific theory. If something important turns out to be wrong, we'll let you know.

When it comes to more "personal opinion" type issues though, like moral issues or gun control or what have you, it's good to periodically re-evaluate your opinions to see if they make sense. I used to think that gay marriage was a bad thing, and that gun control and prohibition of hard drugs were good things. In retrospect, after examining the relevant information, I was incorrect. Just because something makes sense to you doesn't mean it's actually correct.