Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

The Akashic Field

Page 4 of 4 [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Previous topic | Next topic

twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

10 Jul 2009, 9:52 pm

Sand wrote:
Magnus wrote:
Why all the hostility? Why do you care what people believe? No one will ever think just like you. Take a look around at all the cultures and how different people are. If everyone disrespected people who were inferior in their eyes then people would just be mean to one another. That doesn't sound like a nice thing, to have people being mean to one another. :eye:

It's rude and immature to disrespect people for having different beliefs than yours. Maybe that is why some will go to great lengths to justify their beliefs in god to you? If you disrespect people because you think they are stupid then what do you expect? Should they just sit there and let you disrespect them. As they see it, you don't understand what you disrespect. And even if a person is stupid, he/she still is worthy of respect.


There are some viewpoints that are so easily seen to be out of sync with reality that not much respect can be granted. Any idea must have legs to stand on and it is the business of a discussion to flatten any idea that cannot stand up to criticism.

A discussion's purpose is not to flatten other ideas, that is polemics; it is the business of a discussion to seriously entertain at least why a given idea may be appealing to another intelligent individual. The capacity to entertain apparently ridiculous beliefs is a very instructive task that at the least allows us to critically analyze our own irrational biases, even if we do not ultimately agree.

We do not discuss to crush; we discuss to learn and educate. Disrespect and contempt accomplishes neither, it appeals only to our basest natures.


_________________
* here for the nachos.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Jul 2009, 10:04 pm

twoshots wrote:
x

We do not discuss to crush; we discuss to learn and educate. Disrespect and contempt accomplishes neither, it appeals only to our basest natures.


Be that as it may, in any discussion facts have a privileged position. Facts trump theories and facts trump opinion. Facts rule.

No matter how sincerely you hold an opinion or advocate a theory, if it is contradicted by a fact, the opinion or theory is wrong.

ruveyn



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

10 Jul 2009, 11:29 pm

twoshots wrote:
Sand wrote:
Magnus wrote:
Why all the hostility? Why do you care what people believe? No one will ever think just like you. Take a look around at all the cultures and how different people are. If everyone disrespected people who were inferior in their eyes then people would just be mean to one another. That doesn't sound like a nice thing, to have people being mean to one another. :eye:

It's rude and immature to disrespect people for having different beliefs than yours. Maybe that is why some will go to great lengths to justify their beliefs in god to you? If you disrespect people because you think they are stupid then what do you expect? Should they just sit there and let you disrespect them. As they see it, you don't understand what you disrespect. And even if a person is stupid, he/she still is worthy of respect.


There are some viewpoints that are so easily seen to be out of sync with reality that not much respect can be granted. Any idea must have legs to stand on and it is the business of a discussion to flatten any idea that cannot stand up to criticism.

A discussion's purpose is not to flatten other ideas, that is polemics; it is the business of a discussion to seriously entertain at least why a given idea may be appealing to another intelligent individual. The capacity to entertain apparently ridiculous beliefs is a very instructive task that at the least allows us to critically analyze our own irrational biases, even if we do not ultimately agree.

We do not discuss to crush; we discuss to learn and educate. Disrespect and contempt accomplishes neither, it appeals only to our basest natures.


Being "crushed" is an emotional reaction derived by attaching self respect to conceptual ideas that are easily proven to be absolute nonsense. If an idea cannot stand up to observed relationships it should not be defended on the basis of interpersonal "respect". It makes rational discussion impossible to declare an idea out of bounds for attack. Whether an idea is appealing or not is irrelevant to sensible analysis. An idea must have some solid basis in confirmed observation. Gut feelings or popular acceptance has little or nothing to do with whether an idea has validity.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Jul 2009, 6:17 am

Sand wrote:

Being "crushed" is an emotional reaction derived by attaching self respect to conceptual ideas that are easily proven to be absolute nonsense. If an idea cannot stand up to observed relationships it should not be defended on the basis of interpersonal "respect". It makes rational discussion impossible to declare an idea out of bounds for attack. Whether an idea is appealing or not is irrelevant to sensible analysis. An idea must have some solid basis in confirmed observation. Gut feelings or popular acceptance has little or nothing to do with whether an idea has validity.


Try telling that to a Post Modernist who thinks science is just another made up story. The Pomos simply do not understand that truth matters.

There is clearly too much New Age Woo Woo Bu**sh*t and Postmodernist Dreck in the land. When you bring up contrary facts to these people they accuse you of a kind of bigotry. How dare you put truth and facts in a privileged position!


ruveyn



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

11 Jul 2009, 8:57 pm

Sand wrote:
Being "crushed" is an emotional reaction derived by attaching self respect to conceptual ideas that are easily proven to be absolute nonsense.

Very wrong ideas are oftentimes very wrong in very subtle ways, contrary to popular belief. Some people may enjoy arguments from ridicule, but these are as a rule not charitable and not cogent because they fail to address the core fallacies. Simply assuming your premises and proceeding to conclude the other person is wrong is technically valid, but it's shoddy.
Quote:
If an idea cannot stand up to observed relationships it should not be defended on the basis of interpersonal "respect".

I scarcely see refutations being terribly clear round here outside of an added layer of dialectical heuristics like burden of proof and Occam's razor.
Quote:
It makes rational discussion impossible to declare an idea out of bounds for attack.

It has not been my intention to advocate that ideas ought to be considered beyond criticism.
Quote:
Whether an idea is appealing or not is irrelevant to sensible analysis. An idea must have some solid basis in confirmed observation. Gut feelings or popular acceptance has little or nothing to do with whether an idea has validity.

Meh. "Validity" is a linguistic construct. Anything other than cold criticism is just adding a superfluous layer of irrational emotive and ontological stuff.

The principle of charity is the backbone of intelligent and civilized discourse. As a rule, one should treat other ideas as though they are potentially valid beliefs. To give them less is to assume that oneself is far more rational and intelligent than is likely to be true.


_________________
* here for the nachos.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

11 Jul 2009, 9:05 pm

twoshots wrote:
Sand wrote:
Being "crushed" is an emotional reaction derived by attaching self respect to conceptual ideas that are easily proven to be absolute nonsense.

Very wrong ideas are oftentimes very wrong in very subtle ways, contrary to popular belief. Some people may enjoy arguments from ridicule, but these are as a rule not charitable and not cogent because they fail to address the core fallacies. Simply assuming your premises and proceeding to conclude the other person is wrong is technically valid, but it's shoddy.
Quote:
If an idea cannot stand up to observed relationships it should not be defended on the basis of interpersonal "respect".

I scarcely see refutations being terribly clear round here outside of an added layer of dialectical heuristics like burden of proof and Occam's razor.
Quote:
It makes rational discussion impossible to declare an idea out of bounds for attack.

It has not been my intention to advocate that ideas ought to be considered beyond criticism.
Quote:
Whether an idea is appealing or not is irrelevant to sensible analysis. An idea must have some solid basis in confirmed observation. Gut feelings or popular acceptance has little or nothing to do with whether an idea has validity.

Meh. "Validity" is a linguistic construct. Anything other than cold criticism is just adding a superfluous layer of irrational emotive and ontological stuff.

The principle of charity is the backbone of intelligent and civilized discourse. As a rule, one should treat other ideas as though they are potentially valid beliefs. To give them less is to assume that oneself is far more rational and intelligent than is likely to be true.


Ideas are both potentially valid and potentially invalid. Observations must be made and presented in this respect and no emotional prejudices should be attached.