Is debate possible between ignoramuses?How is it possible

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Is it possible to have a debate when participants to it have not got all the relevant facts at their disposal?If they hadn't would it simply be a rhetoric competition or an argument or just general sounding off?Are we in danger of confusing the squeaks and squeals of unexamined subjectivity,a female survival technique,with robust debate.
If credence is allowed to metaphysical,supernatural or spiritual notions would we not be engaged in a reversal of scientific progress and heading back to witch trials and rain dances and beyond .A possible answer to that is that we wouldn't so long as the subjective style of debating was the exclusive concern of people of no consequence which is to say people who have voluntarily removed themselves from the project of human progress.
Such considerations would logically lead to the institutionalisation of Huxley's Alpha to Epsilon stratification.
Has a debating point any validity when the debater making it could not live with just the intended consequences of its universal acceptance.Suppose, for example,the rhetoric of an animal lover was so powerful that the whole Western world was converted to vegetarianism overnight.What would be the consequences,intended and unintended,of that.Would the animal lover who found those quite obvious consequences unacceptable be in a position of only being an animal lover so long as few others were.
In other words-is his love of animals just a self indulgent function of a
combination of his ignorance and his need to draw attention to himself as a sweet and virtuous person.

spendius.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 29,039 • Replies: 806

No top replies

Funny that you try to genderize debatingtechniques. Many of our greatest achievments are a direct result of what you call unexamined subjectivity. Michael Faraday, the man who showed us the relationship between magnetism and elecricity was able to do this because his background was religious rather than scientific. All scientific tests on the suject had failed, because the general scientific view in those times was of a linear art. When scientists envisioned the magnetic currents they imagined linear movement. Faraday, coming from a religious family, believed in the circle as being the fundamental figure. His first experiment was a success. I guess what I am trying to say is: What are the relevant facts?

Meaning no disrespect, I think you yourself are squeeling and squeeking quite a bit in your post. Luckily I do not share your view that facts are absolute. The entire scientifict world might disagree with your ideas, and you might still be right... Smile

Quote:

people who have voluntarily removed themselves from the project of human progress.

Is it at all possible to remove oneself from this project. Isn't the act of removal itself in the very spirit of this project?

0 Replies

Okay!
What are the relevant facts? Cyracuz reasonably asks.
Well Micheal Faraday was in a long line of development which began I suppose with the overthrow of unexamined subjectivity,a principle so dearly loved by the Holy Fathers that they condemned to the stake those who first challenged it.Giordano Bruno being a famous example.
Copernicus daren't publish in his own lifetime and Galileo publicly recanted.Without the Reformation it is difficult to see a Faraday appearing as early as he did.Newton verged on the mystical.It is reasonable to assume that someone else would have done what Faraday did given the unleashing of insatiable curiousity in the 16th and 17th centuries coupled with a pretty obvious fascination with magnetism and electricity in cat's fur and storms and the explosion of printing techniques and distribution which rendered any results subject to critical examination.
I would like to see some justification for the idea that Faraday's achievents stemmed from a religious orientation.Is there unexamined subjectivity in Euclid?Or in thermo dynamics or fission research?In a world completely permeated with unexamined subjectivity wouldn't it be easy to assert that all backgrounds were religious rather than scientific?

spendius.

0 Replies

You asked:
"Is it possible to have a debate when participants to it have not got all the relevant facts at their disposal?"

So that I have "all the relevant facts", what do you mean by an "ignoramus"?

0 Replies

Somebody who doesn't know what he is talking about.

spendius.

0 Replies

I'll follow that.
Like someone who is impatient with someone else who hasn't showed up on time when they don't know whether the unpunctual person is dead or not.That sort of ignorance leads to empty debate with oneself.

spendius.

0 Replies

The biblical word for such a person is a FOOL.

0 Replies

Here are some biblical examples of foolish behaviour:

1. Proverbs 10:8 "The wise in heart will receive commandments: but a prating fool shall fall."

2. Prov 10:23 "It is as sport to a fool to do mischief: but a man of understanding hath wisdom."

3. Prov 12:15 "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise."

Etcetera, etcetera.

0 Replies

I command thee to eat grass.

A man of wisdom hath understanding.

I recommend a diet of grass.

spendius.

0 Replies

?!?

0 Replies

Don't bother bib.

0 Replies

Ssh! This is the Leprechaun Technique :wink:

0 Replies

Let's all hope for a pot of gold at the end.

0 Replies

Re: Is debate possible between ignoramuses?How is it possibl
Or at least some pot. Very Happy

spendius wrote:

Is it possible to have a debate when participants to it have not got all the relevant facts at their disposal?If they hadn't would it simply be a rhetoric competition or an argument or just general sounding off?Are we in danger of confusing the squeaks and squeals of unexamined subjectivity,a female survival technique,with robust debate.

A "female" survival technique is "the squeaks & squeals of unexamined subjectivity"? Did you have a bad date last weekend?

Quote:

If credence is allowed to metaphysical,supernatural or spiritual notions would we not be engaged in a reversal of scientific progress and heading back to witch trials and rain dances and beyond .

Anyone who allows that something of which they know nothing is therefore merely "a notion" is a strange sort of scientist. Why not simply say it is not what you wish to study?

Quote:

A possible answer to that is that we wouldn't so long as the subjective style of debating was the exclusive concern of people of no consequence which is to say people who have voluntarily removed themselves from the project of human progress.

Another answer might be that some scientists are jumped-up monkeys, who may master one field and assume they have mastery of everything else. Very Happy

Quote:

Such considerations would logically lead to the institutionalisation of Huxley's Alpha to Epsilon stratification.

Of which not only were the lowest deprived of oxygen (by those higher ups), but are also a fictional account of the world.

Does this mean you scorn manual labor? Who is it takes care of you then?

Quote:

Has a debating point any validity when the debater making it could not live with just the intended consequences of its universal acceptance.Suppose, for example,the rhetoric of an animal lover was so powerful that the whole Western world was converted to vegetarianism overnight.What would be the consequences,intended and unintended,of that.Would the animal lover who found those quite obvious consequences unacceptable be in a position of only being an animal lover so long as few others were.
In other words-is his love of animals just a self indulgent function of a
combination of his ignorance and his need to draw attention to himself as a sweet and virtuous person. spendius.

A universal change of that order seems to be one of those heady, nonsensical ideas that a Gamma might manage. Whoever makes these points?

0 Replies

This is an interesting question. One could easily ask the opposite. Is debate possible between two that are all knowing?

If one is all knowing would there even be room for debate? One could easily assume not since there is no room to change one's mind if you already know everything. This leads us back to your question. It would seem logical to conclude at least one of the debaters must be ignorant of some facts if there is to be any debate at all. Does ignorance of some facts make one an ignoramus? What is the level of ignorance needed to achieve being an ignoramus?

Real debate can only occur if the two have some agreed upon facts that they can use to discuss their conclusions. Otherwise it is not debate.

You might think someone is an ignoramus because they don't believe the facts that you do but that hardly prevents them from having a valid debate with someone that shares belief in those facts.

Here the philosophy gets interesting. If two people that believe the earth is flat have a debate about the size of that flat earth, is their discussion not a debate because they don't have facts obvious to others outside their debate? How can anyone be sure that their percieved facts are not obviously false to others? Are two nuclear physicists having a debate about the nature of quarks the equivalent of two flat earthers?

0 Replies

Very clever, Parados.

Debate Societies depends on participants being willing and able to argue either side of an issue.

0 Replies

Quote:

If credence is allowed to metaphysical,supernatural or spiritual notions would we not be engaged in a reversal of scientific progress and heading back to witch trials and rain dances and beyond

yes, I think so........

0 Replies

Is debate possible between ignoramuses?

<looks around>

<checks out a few other discussions>

<shrugs>

It certainly would seem so.

0 Replies

Ignoramus.. As opposed to what? Omniscentus?

Timber landko nailed this thread. Enough said, and anyone who raises his voice hereafter is either deaf or ignoramus:)

0 Replies

Cyracuz: Pardon?

0 Replies

Is debate possible between ignoramuses?How is it possible

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know