Dogmatic Argumentation

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by playainda336, Nov 23, 2007.

  1. playainda336

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,000
    Albums:
    7
    Likes Received:
    1,213
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Greensboro (NC, US)
    Is it contagious? If so, I need to get my vaccination.

    I never understood why people tend to argue with "Screw your sources, I'm right" and "I say all of your sources are null and void, because I'm right." or "Only a fool/idiot/stupid/dumb person would fall for that source, it's been proven to be wrong...by me. Because I'm right." attitudes.

    Is the purpose of the argument to prove that you are right or is it spread enlightenment and understanding. I tend believe the latter, but it seems many go for the former.

    Is it so important that you are right that you must defend your statements to blind ignorance of fact that you wish to not believe? And why do people defend so hard the statements of others that are mere opinion as if they are fact.

    These are many general questions, but I thought I'd pique the minds of the board. Have at it.
     
  2. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    It sounds as though you may have been reviewing some of the posts by one of our favorite former trolls, jqblonde.

    When I debate, I do actually try to see the opposing point of view; but if it does not hold water, I dismiss it.

    Obviously, in a serious debate, no one is going to defend a point of view that he knows is in error (well, unless he has some major mental pathology going on). I'm always willing to modify my views and beliefs, if given sufficient reason to do so. By the same token, I usually try to present logical reasoning if I think my ideas are correct and another person's ideas are lacking.

    But unfortunately, you are correct: most people will adopt the attitude of "I believe what I believe, and I refuse to listen to anything that may change that, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that I may be wrong."
     
  3. Male Bonding etc

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,040
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Southwest USA
    Well, we seemed to have settled into an era of blatant anti-intellectualism. The leaders of several countries, most notably (at least for those of us in the US) George II, are icons of being "deciders" without much substance to back their decisions.

    Education, education, education! See http://www.lpsg.org/68547-is-there-social-need-creativity-2.html
     
  4. playainda336

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,000
    Albums:
    7
    Likes Received:
    1,213
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Greensboro (NC, US)
    I've been reviewing a LOT of threads and I see it going on. After a while, I just lose taste for them.

    Obviously, no one is going to just say "Hey, you're right! I should have listened." but the least anybody can do is acknowledge, "I see what you're saying, but I still think you are wrong."

    I just wish people would think in terms of logical argument. Presenting premises and displaying validity. Not just, "Tom Cruise said Scientology is right! So you're wrong, because he's a credible source!"

    ._.;

    I believe sometimes people think that the "loudest" voice is the "rightest" voice sometimes as well.
     
  5. headbang8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,272
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Munich (BY, DE)
    Sez you.
     
  6. rob_just_rob

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2005
    Messages:
    6,037
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Nowhere near you
    Truthiness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I've noticed that many people seem to miss the "satirical" part of the definition.

    A few years ago I read a book called "Voltaire's Bastards", by J.R. Saul. One of the central themes of the book was that debate on meaningful issues was being being truncated by "experts" on the issues in question, via the experts' deliberate use of jargon from their respective fields.

    For example: "Sure, you can say U.S. monetary policy is driving the country into ruin. But I have a Ph.D. in economics, and I assure you that you're wrong, because you haven't taken theories X, Y, and Z into account" (self-described Ph.D. then deliberately rhymes off 3 separate obscure theories that he knows his debating opposite has never heard of, thus ending the conversation).

    I wonder sometimes if dogmatic argumentation (nice phrase you have coined, btw) isn't an extreme overreaction to the complaint Saul voiced in VB.
     
  7. playainda336

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,000
    Albums:
    7
    Likes Received:
    1,213
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Greensboro (NC, US)
    Hahah...quite possibly.

    That's funny, I think I want to read that now.
     
  8. SpeedoGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,229
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Everyone should know by now that force-of-personality always trumps education or intellect. :rolleyes:
     
  9. Male Bonding etc

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,040
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Southwest USA
    Perhaps we should work harder to ensure that we educate for social skills, force-of-personality, as well as intellect... and sport.
     
  10. B_NineInchCock_160IQ

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,378
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    where the sun never sets
    The relative anonymity of the internet and the ease at which one can walk away from any argument there engenders this, I think. People say whatever they feel like saying, without feeling any pressing need to protect anybody's feelings, without feeling in any way responsible to the people whom they are posting to, and without feeling like they need to back up anything they say. We're not at the national debate championships here. We're all just spouting off our opinions, and the medium we are using to do so doesn't encourage any standards of decency or accountability.
     
  11. northwestone

    northwestone New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    1
    I find the most effective way to knock home your argument is with a slap.

    it's quick, it's easy, it doesn't require a great deal of thought, and, if you do it hard enough people generally don't argue back...no matter how much force their personality has...
     
  12. Big en

    Big en New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    315
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    England
    HUH? (falling back to sleep now):biggrin1:
     
  13. playainda336

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,000
    Albums:
    7
    Likes Received:
    1,213
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Greensboro (NC, US)
    I prefer a quick jab or an elbow, but unfortunately online has limited...err...possibilities for that situation.
     
  14. Male Bonding etc

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,040
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Southwest USA
    While those who attended schools where things like raps across the back of the hand with a ruler were permitted (nuns are famous for this method) do not remember such treatment fondly, there is something to be said for a physical component bringing home a point and etching it into memory. Perhaps, we can use our words to similar effect, but instead of calling someone a fucktard or idiot, we shake up their thinking with words that pique and images that stimulate since those are all that we have available in this medium.
     
  15. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    I agree that it's disingenuous to use tactics as you describe in your Ph. D. in economics example, but is citing theories X, Y, and Z (of which you know your debate opponent is unaware) only unethical if those theories are obscure? In those ubiquitous threads about "should I take anabolic steroids to gain muscle and make my cock bigger", I usually bring up the "cascade effect" that occurs in the pituitary gland when exogenous hormones are introduced. Not obscure, but something that most casual/recreational users don't consider.

    Equally abhorrant are those who do cite their "sources", but the sources are widely known to be questionable. A fine example would be the use of an article published by Concerned Women for America. You check the citations in that article, and they are attributed to Exodus International. You check their sources, and Family Research Council is cited. You check their citations, and CWA is listed.
     
  16. SpeedoGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,229
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Anyone who is seriously suggesting inflicting pain as an effective technique for illustrating a point would do well to consider the long term consequences of using such methods. They should be self evident.
     
  17. ClaireTalon

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,947
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Puget Sound
    That is rather easy to understand: Nobody wants to loose, and nobody wants to be deprived of his face in a discussion probably involving several persons. And so, when they are logical arguments, and the facts, some people tend to attack other sources, whether it's justified or not. I think this is absolutely understandable, but not a nice move, and neither a constructive contribution to a discussion.

    That really depends. I'd say most arguments are intended to spread enlightment and understanding, but human nature turns most of them into proving someone's right or wrong. Again, nobody likes to loose a discussing match in front of others, so it inevitably leads to that kind of denying another persons theses. I have no problem with that, but it should be done with manners and in a civilized way.
     
  18. rob_just_rob

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2005
    Messages:
    6,037
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Nowhere near you
    Well, note that I said "deliberately" in my initial post. The deliberate use of technical jargon (where ordinary language would suffice) is what I'm talking about.

    Obviously if there is a theory that explains the issue, it should be cited. But merely citing it, without providing a context or explaining why it explains the issue is a sort of intellectual arrogance, essentially the same as saying "you have no business debating this matter with me, because you don't even know the language!"

    The concern is that technical specialists use their jargon to create barriers to non-specialists, thereby increasing their own credibility and value.

    I don't really read those threads, but if you explain what the "cascade effect" is, and have sources to back up your belief that it is a problem for steroid users, it sounds like solid reasoning.

    If you simply post "cascade effect", it's more like intellectual arrogance. Of course, if one is responding to the 587th thread on steroids, the temptation towards brevity is there.

    Yes. This sort of thing happens too often with contentious issues. Essentially it's another level of dogmatic argumentation - a source that dresses up a dogmatic argument with made-up sources/studies, and calls it "science".

    It's difficult to argue with people who refuse to accept generally accepted facts. Virtually everyone would agree that 2+2=4; mathematical calculations are fairly safe to assert. The vast majority of people accept certain givens of physical science - the moon revolves around the earth. Uncontentious historical events are accepted almost universally - the battle of Hastings took place in 1066; John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas 44 years ago yesterday. And so on.

    When you attach a political agenda to historical or current events, things get sketchy. There are people out there who don't believe the Holocaust happened, for example, or the moon landings. And there are people who don't believe global warming exists, or don't believe that 9/11 was a surprise to the Bush administration. Almost always, there's some politics or economics behind these (lack of) beliefs... they're contentious because if they were believed universally, the current disbelievers would have to (or on some level, believe they would have to) radically change their lifestyle, values, or socialization. Sometimes, the believers would have to do the same thing, were they to disbelieve. Thus are vitriolic, screaming arguments born.




    Finally, note that 2+2=10, when working in base 4.
     
  19. wannabigman

    wannabigman New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2007
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    0
    its worse than aids.
     
  20. Adam875

    Adam875 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    690
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Amid the absolute welter of verbal garbage that the multitudinous internet forums and 'Have your say' pages seem to generate, including specifically our much-loved LPSG, NineInch's succinct, intelligent and articulate post hits this particular thread's nail squarely on the head. I can only thank him for it - it is the best I've ever seen on this subject - while refraining from quite unnecessary further comment. Save to say that he is evidently gifted in more than the cock department ... if I may say so.

    Such is the mediocrity of so much moronic posting that I am seriously thinking of abandoning my membership of LPSG, with great sadness as I have greatly enjoyed and valued the 'company' of so many good and kind people over the past four years.

    You may think I sound a sad old git. Actually I'm not!
     
Draft saved Draft deleted