Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 22 Oct 2006 23:06:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4722 times
|
| |
|
|
Hi, Dave.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
Great Googly Moogly this debate is great!
|
Heh, glad somebody is enjoying it.
| |
Anyway, I just wanted to pop up at this one point--it’s best described, for me
anyway, as the ‘Decker Arguement’
See, here’s Kirk, listing the positive attributes as to why he should be in
command of this particular mission--with the experience and the knowhow and
the ability to ‘save the universe’ and the history of confronting the
‘unknown’, and then he says ‘and my experience with this ship’
To which Decker responds--‘Hey you! This ship is completely redesigned--you
don’t know nothing about this ship so your whole arguement is null and void!’
Like the OJ case--‘cause the gloves didn’t fit, that made the entire case
circumspect.
Drives me bonkers--hey, if you have 9 points out of 10 that are 100 percent
legit, but 1 point that, well, isn’t so much, that does not allow the other
guy to throw out the entire case--is like, as the cliche goes--throwing the
baby out with the bathwater.
Anyway, throwing it in there.
|
You make a good point, Dave, and reading over what I wrote I can see why you’ve
brought this up.
In the Kirk case, Kirk has listed several independent arguments for why he
should be be in command of the mission. If you show one of those arguments to
be invalid, I agree it hardly follows from that that his entire case is
invalid. (I think it’s also worth pointing out that none of Kirk’s arguments
depend on nonrationally derived personal religious revelation. Kirk may well
feel something like a nonrational religious certitutde that he is the right man
to command the mission, but he is not simply appealing to that certitude as an
argument or building an argument with using that certitude as a premise. He is
attempting to give rational reasons throughout.)
What I tried to make clear in my post to John was that I will gladly listen to
and consider any and all of his rational arguments for his religious beliefs.
He is also welcome to state his nonrational arguments, but I was suggesting that
he should not expect them to be taken seriously in a rational discussion, and
they cannot help his overall case. You are right to point out that his overall
case is not in any way instantly invalidated by his use of nonrational
argumants, it is simply weakened, just as Kirk’s was when it was pointed out
that the ship had been entirely redesigned.
So if John were to present 5 rational arguments to support the proposition that
Jesus survived death and 1 nonrational reason, I would not instantly dismiss his
5 rational reasons. They would be unaffected by his presenting a nonrational
argument, and would have to be evaluated separately.
This distinction is important, and I’m glad you pressed me to make it, but I
think my original point is still quite valid. On an individual argument level,
an entire argument may be seen as rationally unconvincing if it is found to
depend on a nonrational premise.
So in cases where John, at first blush, seems to be making a rational argument
that Jesus survived death, but in the course of discussion it becomes apparent
that (as few as) one of the necessary premises in John’s argument is a
nonrationally-derived belief which is being taken as a given, this does in
fact cause that particular entire argument built up from that
nonrationally-derived belief to become rationally unconvincing. It does not
invalidate his entire case (all his arguments collectively), but it does
weaken his case. And if it turns out that all of his arguemnts are built up
from nonrational premises, that would cause his entire case to be rationally
unconvincing.
My point was to let John be aware that his arguments that depend on
nonrationally-derived premises will never be seen as rationally convincing to
most people, so he might be better off dispensing with them in favor of
arguments that only depend on rationally-derived premises when making an overall
case.
It is my observation that a whole lot of fruitless debate takes place in this
world, and it seems a shame that people generally do not seem to realize why
this is the case. The primary reason so much debate is fruitless is because
people are ultimately debating matters of taste (subjective value judgments).
Who’s more awesome, my favorite rock band or yours? My favorite restaurant or
yours? My sports team or yours? Debate! It may not be obvious at first. It
may seem like a potentially fruitful debate, the arguments back and forth may
use valid logical deductions, they may appeal to actual facts in the world which
can be verified, but whether the participants ever realize it or not, one or
both parties are using differing subjective value judgments as premises in
their arguments, and because of that such an argument can never be “resolved”.
The next most common reason debates are fruitless is because one or more parties
are constructing arguments based on nonrationally-derived beliefs held with
such utter conviction that they are taken as a given. Now, if both sides
accept these nonrationally-derived givens, rational debate can actually
proceed from there. But if these nonrationally-derived beliefs are taken as a
given by only one side, and their arguments depend on those givens, their
arguments will never be rationally convincing to the other party.
So when I observe or participate in a debate, the very first impulse I have is
to determine if the debate is really worth having at all. To do that, I try to
determine (by looking at what’s already been said, or by asking pointed
questions) whether the matter is ultimately a matter of taste (and therefore can
never be “resolved”) or whether either party’s arguments ultimately depend on
nonrationally-derived beliefs that the other party does not share.
If neither of those is the case, debate on! We may all learn something!
-Brendan
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
86 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
