Intellectually Honest
What about intellectually honest discussion?
Part of the problem is busy schedules and taking the time to write and research some so that opinions have meaning and logic.
This discussion should benefit from the use of data and logic and deductive argument.
Another problem is that arguments need to be short - again the busy schedule thing.
Additionally, one may wish to rely on his friends to bring the other side of a discussion to full fruition - so some discussions are one-sided until responses are added.
Opinion should be suppressed in place of logic and discussion points. One should be willing to take both sides of a discussion in order to bring on a flavor of intellectual honesty.
Fallacies should be avoided.
This should lead to a fruitful Conversation Among Friends.
Peace,
Joey
Here are some violatons that I have seen here. (Don't think that I have no violatons of my own or am claiming innocense.)
From the link on fallacy:
Appeal to Ridicule, Appeal to Popularity, Appeal to Tradition, Personal Attack, Guilt by Association, Hasty Generalization, Questionable Cause, Two Wrongs Make a Right, Genetic Fallacy, Post Hoc, Appeal to Common Practice.
To name a few. I think we can do better than this.
js
While I must admit that I've been inclined to grab a 2x4 to try to beat some sense into the dunderheads tormenting me (allowing Jonathan to play the role of the good cop), I've come to the conclusion that such effort is pointless - other than for the caloric benefits. It is hard to participate in discussions about the number of angels able to dance on the head of a pin when the existence of one of the components is in doubt from my perspective.
Alas, I think the dogma-driven viewpoints are too well entrenched to make any textual exposition a fruitful exercise so I'll have to restrict my diatribes in this forum to Mathematica (with which I continue to have a love-hate relationship).
HOWEVER, speaking of Mathematica, I will be heading into the US for the Wolfram Tech Conference so if you would like to gather at the house on Monday night, 15 October, I will wax eloquent while leaving the 2x4s safely in the garage but supplying adequate quantities of libation to lubricate the thought processes. As an ex-Republican, I, obviously, have maintained some of the core-competencies of that variant of the population; however, I also believe in the right of people to choose their own path to hell ... as long as they don't insist upon dragging me along with them.
Let me know if you are willing to block Monday night. I'm getting back into town on Sunday night so that is in play as an option. I've got an early morning flight back to Shanghai on Wednesday so Tuesday is a bit less desirable but still a possibility if that's the way the schedule gods align.
I thought I was wrong once, but,... I was mistaken.
With a scope as wide as "religion, politics, science, whatever...", it seems like there should be more to talk about than just Mathematica even if you abstained from the more abstract subjects. For example, discussions of the evidence for/against the human origins of global warming and about evolution as a mechanism to get from a big bang to today...come to mind...topics that were raised but not really pushed forward by any of us.
For the most part, I'm pleased with at how this has worked out with some sustained and substantial discussion among JS, PM, and JM...but I really think it could benefit from a broader diversity of perspectives and topics (from Mark, Kip, Madan, Guido, Bob, etc)...and, of course, time to pay attention to any of this.
About Mon Oct 15. I could make a late appeareance..say after 9 PM or maybe a bit before...I'm on dad duty until then on that date. So, Sunday would probably be better for me...or I could get a baby sitter for Monday.
I'll be driving back from Champaign on Sunday. Even if I get a late start, I should easily hit town by 5 or 6. We can target a 7 pm kickoff to allow me some margin to grab basic food & snacks and we'll be operational.
In retrospect, Sunday night probably works better from the Dow schedule perspective so let's figure on going that way.
Works for me. js
MK,
Passion is a good thing. JM, PM, and I just want to spar a bit. This is what is interesting - understanding our differences and exploring some new thinking. For examle, Haley has some interesting thoughts but I think those in "attack mode" are keeping him off the blog (myself included). I don't want to give up adversarial discussion but I will tone it down in favor of seeing those fragile ideas get posted.
What we want is a good conversation among friends.
JS
MK,
"Alas, I think the dogma-driven viewpoints are too well entrenched to make any textual exposition a fruitful exercise . . ."
May I propose to you that "truth" is, by definition, an objective entity. There must be one and only one truth. This is my central dogma.
Now, I do not claim to have a hold on the "truth" - hence my willingness to discuss ideas.
Doesn't your lack of willingness to discuss ideas make it dangerous for you? Doesn't your lack of willingness to engage in conversation say that you are not willing to move beyond your own attachment to the dogmas that you have decided are true?
Aren't you then the most dogmatic among us?
Friendship inherently involves a discussion and a refinement. Please don't decide against friendship. It's more fun this way. We could even agree to disagree. But to not discuss is very dangerous. Let's not get old and entrenched.
js
Sigh.
Unfortunately, you are catching me at a weak moment since I wholeheartedly agree that you do not "have a hold on the truth".
The brutal reality is that if we were living in the age of Voltaire, I would be under a reasonably large risk of painfully dying at your hand because that was "the will of god". You might regret it at the time and, in a few hundred years, your heirs might even apologize in the best tradition of the Catholic church; however, I would take little solace in that regret. You, on the other hand, would be safe from me operating under a similar mandate.
You are at this point, taking umbrage at this unfair, bold and unfounded statement. HOWEVER, yours truly did not devote time to going to a place of legal business with a mob of like-minded people to physically intimidate potential patrons of that business. Calling such activities "prayer" is disingenuous since if the power of prayer was sufficient, the mob could have gathered in the privacy of cult headquarters for that activity. No, rather the goal was physical and emotional indimidation of individuals by a mob of fifty.
I doubt that you can see that with a few less social constraints, it would be very easy for those involved in such activities to escalate to those in Europe of only a few hundred years ago. Unfortunately, that leap is painfully and saddeningly obvious to me.
Couple that with a proven history of dogmatic denial (e.g., the infamous Gallileo and Voltaire comments I have in my emails) as well as a general respect for hierarchy and I think my chances of even slightly modifying your world view with either logic or 2x4 application is pretty minimal. Hence, I'm better off spending my time elsewhere since there is much to learn and understand.
The summary is that unless I see some ability to either acknowledge past sins of the cult, a reluctance to inflict your personal beliefs via force on others or a recognition that your head should explode from trying to simultaneously embrace diametrically opposing philosophies (like "conservative" and "christian") it would seem that a wall would be a better partner for dialogue.
MK,
Thanks for the response. I benefit greatly from your criticisms and I hope you do not think that dialogue with a wall is a better use of your time.
Your perception of the pro-life activities is useful for my understanding. I appreciate your concerns and you have a point.
I would be happy to discuss Gallileo and Voltaire simply start a thread and we can discuss the response of the Catholic Church.
Importantly, as a Catholic there are plenty of church positions that I disagree with (and am perfectly free to disagree with and still be a catholic). There are other matters relating to faith and morals that I have to assent to in order to call myself a catholic. There are no illusions here - but objectivity is best vetted in discussion.
Regards, js