How can we amicably debate?

[Quintessence]

Because that would be a discussion, not a (philosophical) debate. Remember that the goal of a debate is to find the truth. That is only possible when rationality is rigorously applied. And while humans are mostly irrational, they are capable of rational thought when they focus on it.

I'm not sure many are going to follow some of the assumptions you lay out here. I certainly don't. There is no resolution to the problems of epistemology that doesn't involve making unverifiable assumptions. Finding "the truth" is a fool's errand and waste of time, regardless of what process is being used to attempt to get at that which is an impossibility.

 

[Heyo]

I'm not sure many are going to follow some of the assumptions you lay out here. I certainly don't. There is no resolution to the problems of epistemology that doesn't involve making unverifiable assumptions.

That is right, but I don't see that as a problem, it is just a brute fact.

Finding "the truth" is a fool's errand and waste of time, regardless of what process is being used to attempt to get at that which is an impossibility.

We can at least find what is true when we accept a very few axioms. That is not a waste of time. Such knowledge is useful. It is at least more useful than staying nihilistic and ignorant.

 

[Quintessence]

We can at least find what is true when we accept a very few axioms. That is not a waste of time. Such knowledge is useful. It is at least more useful than staying nihilistic and ignorant.

I guess I find it more worthwhile to explore what truths emerge from holding different axioms - how does the reason hold up within a particular culture or perspective on its own merits instead of ethnocentrically assessing it only from my own? That sort of knowledge is also useful. Arguably more so than trying to find "the truth" at least with respect to social and emotional intelligence or getting along with other human beings. A lot of conflict happens from one culture thinking it is "the truth" and others aren't. It's something I tend to find odd, I guess, when we could instead learn wisdom from all wells. There's limits of time and desire, of course - I just don't spend time studying Christianity for instance in spite of its torches of truth - but my ignorance of their truths doesn't diminish them for those who cherish them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This reminds me of another thing now that you mention - the weird expectations of "rationally defend." The Greek philosophers were unusual in that they had a belief that humans are "rational" animals and that is what is unique about humans. This belief made its way into contemporary Western culture in spite of its weirdness. It is treated like an incontrovertible religious truth by some humans - something must be "rational" or else. You must rationalize yourself or else. That's weird considering the vast majority of human experience and behavior is non-rational. Overthinking and overanalyzing is weird and silly.

Why isn't it enough for someone to just explain where they are coming from and that to be good enough?

Depends on the issue, but I think a lot of this comes down to the "reasonable man" test.

Especially when we're talking about issues that involve legal rights and freedoms, democratic societies generally have the idea that limitations on rights depend on the consent of the governed, but the need for consent has limits: if your argument for limiting someone's rights or changing the law in some way would convince a "reasonable" person, then you've met your burden and you're justified in pursuing the change.

... and typically, the test used to determine what is reasonable is rationality: if your opponent's argument is irrational, then this means they've made a mistake of logic... and relying on an argument we know is mistaken would be unreasonable.

That's my take on it, anyway.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think creating some rules (let's call them guidelines?) would help to lower the temperature as well as structure the debate. Though each guideline may seem trivial in isolation, every little helps (as the old lady said when she peed in the sea). There, that's a guideline to continue @Heyo's excellent start. Inject humor when things seem to be getting too serious. And another. Don't forget to compliment what you see as good arguments as well as criticize bad ones.

It's all about lowering the temperature. Here's another.

I think some heat is fine, personally.

Some members here will often argue for positions that involve inflicting real harm on real people. I don't think the people affected should have to check their emotions at the door or pretend as if the issue under debate is just a thought experiment. I also don't think that these people should be excluded from discussions about issues that affect them.

 

[Heyo]

I guess I find it more worthwhile to explore what truths emerge from holding different axioms

I agree, dropping Euclid's fifth axiom has led to non-Euclidean geometry, definitely an interesting field of study.

- how does the reason hold up within a particular culture or perspective on its own merits instead of ethnocentrically assessing it only from my own? That sort of knowledge is also useful. Arguably more so than trying to find "the truth" at least with respect to social and emotional intelligence or getting along with other human beings. A lot of conflict happens from one culture thinking it is "the truth" and others aren't.

Which usually happens when people forget that all logic depends on accepting the axioms. Different axioms lead to different conclusions. But some sets of axioms lead to contradictions, we can rule those out as useful or true. Others are unnecessarily convoluted or so incomplete that they can't answer many questions.

It's something I tend to find odd, I guess, when we could instead learn wisdom from all wells. There's limits of time and desire, of course - I just don't spend time studying Christianity for instance in spite of its torches of truth - but my ignorance of their truths doesn't diminish them for those who cherish them.

I haven't found any truth in any religion, I concentrate on philosophy, mathematics and science.

 

[Alien826]

I think some heat is fine, personally.

Some members here will often argue for positions that involve inflicting real harm on real people. I don't think the people affected should have to check their emotions at the door or pretend as if the issue under debate is just a thought experiment. I also don't think that these people should be excluded from discussions about issues that affect them.

OK, but that is a different issue. This thread is about becoming more amicable, and my suggestions address that. If you, or anyone, don't want to be amicable, or not always, then this is not for you. As you've raised the subject though, I agree that people shouldn't be excluded based only on style, and if you feel angry about something you have every right to express it.

One thing though. I've had interactions with people with very extreme views that have been pummeled for dozens of pages by people telling them how wrong they are, only to harden their positions. I tried asking them friendly questions about their beliefs and gently introducing alternative views, and found that they often soften their positions enough to say things like "I see what you mean". That's probably as far as I could get in an online forum, but maybe it bore fruit somewhere in their lives later?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Because that would be a discussion, not a (philosophical) debate. Remember that the goal of a debate is to find the truth. That is only possible when rationality is rigorously applied. And while humans are mostly irrational, they are capable of rational thought when they focus on it.

But what is truth, and how will we know it when we see it?

 

[Arnaud1221]

Just be constructive and no flaming.

 

[Heyo]

But what is truth, and how will we know it when we see it?

A true statement follows from previous true statements, or axioms, using the rules of logic.

 

[RestlessSoul]

A true statement follows from previous true statements, or axioms, using the rules of logic.

Okay. So truth is a quality of a statement, and therefore applies only indirectly to it's referent? What of true love, a true circle, or a true story?

 

[Heyo]

Okay. So truth is a quality of a statement, and therefore applies only indirectly to it's referent? What of true love, a true circle, or a true story?

Definitions​

from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.​

• adjective Consistent with fact or reality; not false or erroneous: synonym: real.
• adjective Not counterfeit; real or genuine: synonym: authentic.
• adjective Conforming to the characteristics or criteria of a group or type; typical.
• adjective Properly called.
• adjective Reliable; accurate.
• adjective Faithful, as to a friend, vow, or cause; loyal. synonym: faithful.
• adjective Archaic Truthful, honest, or trustworthy.
• adjective Sincerely felt or expressed; unfeigned.
• adjective Rightful; legitimate.
• adjective Exactly conforming to a rule, standard, or pattern.
• adjective Accurately shaped, fitted, or placed.
• adjective Determined with reference to the earth's axis, not the magnetic poles.
• adjective Quick and exact in sensing and responding.
• adjective Computers Indicating one of two possible values taken by a variable in Boolean logic or a binary device.
• adverb In accord with reality, fact, or truthfulness.
• adverb Unswervingly; exactly.
• adverb So as to conform to a type, standard, or pattern.
• transitive verb To position (something) so as to make it balanced, level, or square.
• noun Truth or reality. Used with the.
• noun Proper alignment or adjustment.

With that many definitions, you can choose freely.

I'm only talking about two of them. 1. In accord with reality, and 2. properly derived from other truths.
Only the "true story" may fit #1, if you mean the literal sense, when I hear "true story", I usually assume that it is meant sarcastically.