If you were to arrange a debate...

Post Reply New Topic

Don't think so.

By the time it took you to notice that, Dawkins would have already castrated you.

Fine, he would have castrated me, good for you. Both of you, out of the airlock. Thank you.

??

I'm not sure you follow. No hitting below the belt - its forum policy.

Please ignore these inappropriate comments - he'll be reprimanded promptly if he keeps this up.

I would have Sigmund Freud debate Carl Rogers. I agree with neither of them, but their theories clash so much that it would be the funniest debate ever. They would be unable to really argue, because they can't base their arguments off the opponents. This would cause two of the most influential minds to regress to a child like argument. If that's not entertaining then what is?

Ayn Rand and Mother Teresa.

ruveyn

Karl Rove vs. Howard Dean

In fact, that is actually happening on February 10th.

I've grown incredibly tired of listening to the obviously left argue with the obviously right and never finding any common ground. I'd like to hear a left leaning moderate against a right learning moderate and have them reach some useful real world conclusions.

Any suggestions on who THAT debate should include?

Ben Nelson vs. John McCain

Dean Baker vs. Milton Friedman

Noam Chomsky vs. Ayn Rand

Sir Eric Arthur Blair vs. Ayn Rand

Bertrand Russell vs. Richard M. Weaver

Adolf Berle vs. von Mises

John Kenneth Galbraith vs. Friedrich von Hayek

C. Wright Mills vs. Tom Wolfe

Christopher Hitchens (1980s) vs. Christopher Hitchens (2000s)

DentArthurDent vs. Jacoby

The main problem with this analogy is that the Epicureans - for all their odes to empiricism - were really just speculating. Taxonomy, genetics, fossil excavations, and biology in general was just not developed enough to provide the "how" of their naturalistic explanations. The current situation - with modern evolutionary synthesis - is much more different than evolution merely being "axiomatic". Arm-chair biology, by the way, was a lot more common in Cierco's time.

You'd also better have him debate Hume on the merits of natural theology before moving up to the 21st century and debating Dawkins. If his philosophical superiority goes to his head, send him to good ol' Massimo Piglicciu of Dennett for a humbling.

In the current situation there are also axioms, where it concerns a priori assumptions and so forth. The involvement of God is rejected on assumption, so even if the scientific data were to suggest God's involvement or existence, the a priori rejection of God would contradict the scientific data and therefore the scientific data would be wrong. No? I'm sure somebody will call this a strawman, and perhaps I haven't phrased it correctly, but the ideological assumptions a researcher has influences the manner in which the researcher, arm-chair or laboratory or field researcher, interprets that data.

Such as in radiometric dating of elements with high ionization potential. An element which has high ionization potential will react with water very rapidly, ripping the oxygen apart from the hydrogen atoms. If you assume that the rock layers were laid down millions of years ago and were sufficiently buried after a point so as not to be affected by water, then after that point of deposition the amount nuclear decay would progress without interruption or leaching by water. The alpha decay, whereby the number of protons in the element is altered, produces a different element with a different amount of ionization potential. The element with more ionization potential will react with water, or any molecule containing elements with high electronegativity, faster than the other element. If the millions of years had past without leaching by water, then the ratios of one element to the other would be indicative to the time when that section of rock was buried enough not to be leached. If, however, we assume that these layers were laid by a flood, whether the Flood of the Bible, or of any flood legends of cultures who hadn't known of the Biblical account, then there is a problem with leaching. The ratios will be incorrect, due to the higher ionization potential of one element compared with the other.

As per Cicero needing to be acquainted with the philosophy of Hume, certainly. Also of Paley, of Darwin, of Pasteur, of Gould, of Wilder, of Dawkin's, and of Sarfati. Both sides should be understood according to what each side intends to present as well as have their philosophy judged according to the soundness and cogency of their arguments. Where the arguments are lacking or otherwise incorrect or invalid, each should improve so as to be logically consistent.

It's difficult to determine right/left.
Economics? Liberalism? Nationalism? Racism?

Plus, it doesn't always have to do with great minds.
Albert Einstein, a great mind, was in favour of socialism because he wanted equality.
On the other hand, you can take a capitalist genius who gives crap about society.
Is there anything to talk about?

I would love to see a debate between Kierkegaard and Nietzsche.
They have the same thoughts on some subjects, and completely diverse on other ones.
So it actually would be a real debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren ... _Nietzsche
You can add John Frusciante in, as well. His lyrics are almost Nietzschean (determinism, idividualism, solitude, to be here you first got to die, etc.) in my opinion, and he talks about spirits all the time. Should be interesting.
And don't know about Kierkegaard, but Nietzsche was a musician himself.

The GREAT minds - when you find them - are generally pretty much in agreement. It is the petty ones who wear armbands and fight it out.

I don't agree with this one - The great minds are the ones who are creative, think for themselves, and are neither deaf/blind or herd-followers. They're the ones who come up with theories, and don't care if they fail - because either way, they learned something. But you cannot always agree with anyone. Even if you have the exact same morals, let's say, you don't have to agree about what method would be better to use and more successful - because it's all theories, and no one can perfectly and accurately see the future (or so I think ).

When brilliant minds have the same direction, but different ideas - a debate would be great. From my experience, a debate with an intelligent, liberal and open-minded person can be very interesting and both sides can enjoy it. I'm not talking about an arguement that seeks a "winner". I'm talking about real mind-stimulating discussions between two people, who don't look at this as a competition. A genius has to be intelligent, free of indoctrination, and open-minded, in my opinion. When you bring up two people like this, especially from different eras or cultures, they can enrich themselves from the discussion. Perhaps that's not what the topic was originally about

But think about it - I'm sure there are people here who talk about some matters with their friends, and the outcome isn't a "draw" or "win", but sometimes even a new same conclusion brought up together, by joining minds. That's what I like about the WP forums, and "typical" Aspies - here I can have an intelligent conversation, I actually think before I'm responding, and I am sometimes convinced - or at least more aware of a different possibility. I can say for myself that debates trigger my mind, and make me research.

That's why I offered Nietzsche and Kierkegaard - they lead the same individualist way, but have some conflicting opinions. You can say that "they speak on the same language", and both use claims of rationality, subjectiveness, and explain themselves as philosophers should.
I'm sure that a discussion, or letter-exchanging, between those two, about psychology, moral, what defines the individual, religion, and other topics, would be great. Even if they can't convince one another about any topic, we can learn as readers/listeners. I would even love to talk with Nietzsche myself - because he has some stands which I'm against, even though I regard him the greatest philosopher of all-times, perhaps - and I think that he is mistaken there, and could be thinking otherwise if he wasn't the only thinker in his society. He didn't believe in anything for sure, and had to think and rationalise everything himself. He got where he got by thinking alone - but if there were two Nietzsches, they would further themselves, and quicker.

Great minds should be brought together. They usually won't reach the same conclusion alone.