Opinions are Nice...

[Mr Spinkles]

...but facts are better. While all of the RF members are clearly capable of using logic to come to conclusions and argue a point, I find that without presenting empirical research, it's all fluff. Personally, without seeing the facts, I have a hard time forming opinions about things like gun control, the use of tazors, hitting children, marijuana use, etc. I can't tell you how much I appreciate it when people provide relevant facts/studies/research in a thread.....it takes the discussion out of the murky depths of intellectual speculation and gives it at least some footing in reality.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I can't tell you how much I appreciate it when people provide relevant facts/studies/research in a thread.....it takes the discussion out of the murky depths of intellectual speculation and gives it at least some footing in reality.

Could you, perhaps, give us concrete examples of where this was the case?

 

[Darkdale]

it takes the discussion out of the murky depths of intellectual speculation and gives it at least some footing in reality.

Prove it.

 

[Scott1]

Could you, perhaps, give us concrete examples of where this was the case?

Good form... I find threads without them to be all fluff.

 

[michel]

...but facts are better. While all of the RF members are clearly capable of using logic to come to conclusions and argue a point, I find that without presenting empirical research, it's all fluff. Personally, without seeing the facts, I have a hard time forming opinions about things like gun control, the use of tazors, hitting children, marijuana use, etc. I can't tell you how much I appreciate it when people provide relevant facts/studies/research in a thread.....it takes the discussion out of the murky depths of intellectual speculation and gives it at least some footing in reality.

So what is wrong with 'Fluff' ?If we all presented 'empirical research', took all emotion out of debates, there would be nothing to debate.

We all have pre-conceived attitudes, and ways of thinking that are based on experience; and I belive that experience has it's value.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I appreciate where you're coming from, Spinks! When a person is wanting to prove something, I feel a lot better if they're willing to do research on it themselves rather than to simply voice their own opinon or (even worse) voice someone else's opinion by posting an article by another.

That said, not all debates can be decided by simple evidence- especially when it might be a topic where there's evidence supporting several options. Emotion is possibly one of our greatest gifts, right up there with logical reasoning. I always enjoy it when the two can work together.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

I, for one, post here as a hobby not as a profession. Often, I do search for information to back up an opinion, but I'm not going to spend hours searching for facts to back up a post that's going to be buried and forgotten 12-36 hours from now. Besides, my experience has shown that very few people changes their minds based on what's posted here or on any message board, so I mainly stick to fun threads.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Hey Mr Sprinkles

Quite the opposite can be true. A lot of times the statement of facts are not concise and people try to overwhelm you with a long list of links, quotes, or whatever. This is quite boring and one doesn't feel like wading through a bunch of documentation. WHile this is a forum, it is more likely to encounter opinions than researched facts. I would agree that this is what makes it interesting. I wish that when someone is backing up what they say with facts that they not burden us with a post that requires hours of going to other sites or reading Novel length reports.

But I will agree with you that facts are important.

 

[Searcher of Light]

The problem with "facts" in religions is there really isnt any. Many religions (if not all in some form) work with faith. Faith by its nature is biased to what a person believes is true. The physical world has facts that we can observe and test. Belief however is not based on testable facts. We simply cannot know for sure what is true until we each face the truth on the other side of this life. We all need to be open to the possibility that in God's eyes (or whatever power or essence you believe in) we could be wrong in what we have believed to the true. This openness should help us all consider what possibly could be spiritual "fact." It never hurts to learn from another's religious views. Afterall, that is why we are all here.

 

[Majikthise]

I, for one, post here as a hobby not as a profession. Often, I do search for information to back up an opinion, but I'm not going to spend hours searching for facts to back up a post that's going to be buried and forgotten 12-36 hours from now. Besides, my experience has shown that very few people changes their minds based on what's posted here or on any message board, so I mainly stick to fun threads.

Yes, yes and yes. I guess I'm guilty of being a "fluffer".:biglaugh:

 

[kreeden]

...but facts are better. While all of the RF members are clearly capable of using logic to come to conclusions and argue a point, I find that without presenting empirical research, it's all fluff. Personally, without seeing the facts, I have a hard time forming opinions about things like gun control, the use of tazors, hitting children, marijuana use, etc. I can't tell you how much I appreciate it when people provide relevant facts/studies/research in a thread.....it takes the discussion out of the murky depths of intellectual speculation and gives it at least some footing in reality.

It is a fact , that in my opinion , facts are nothing more then commonly hold opinions .

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Could you, perhaps, give us concrete examples of where this was the case?

Sure thing Deu--I mean, Jayhawker. I find many of painted wolf's posts to be virtual treasure troves of factual information. Here's an example: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=233796#post233796

And this post, where she talks about the appearance of new "information" in genetics: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19401&page=2

So what is wrong with 'Fluff' ?If we all presented 'empirical research', took all emotion out of debates, there would be nothing to debate.

Sure there would. You could still debate what the research means and how to interpret it.

We all have pre-conceived attitudes, and ways of thinking that are based on experience; and I belive that experience has it's value.

That's true. However, our personal experiences are not necessarily representative of reality. For example, in some threads about violent video games, many gamers claim that because they are not violent criminals, violent games are not a bad influence on children. This reasoning may seem plausible, until one looks at all the studies done on violent games and how they affect people. (See http://search3.apa.org/results.cfm ) The fact is (if you'll forgive the expression ) that reality does not always fit our pre-concieved notions, and sometimes we need to see actual data in order to realize this.

That said, not all debates can be decided by simple evidence- especially when it might be a topic where there's evidence supporting several options.

Oh I absolutely agree. I just think knowledge of this evidence--even if it does support several options--can only serve to give one a more enlightened view of the subject.

Emotion is possibly one of our greatest gifts, right up there with logical reasoning. I always enjoy it when the two can work together.

Emotion? What is this "emotion"? That does not compute....

Quite the opposite can be true. A lot of times the statement of facts are not concise and people try to overwhelm you with a long list of links, quotes, or whatever. This is quite boring and one doesn't feel like wading through a bunch of documentation. WHile this is a forum, it is more likely to encounter opinions than researched facts. I would agree that this is what makes it interesting. I wish that when someone is backing up what they say with facts that they not burden us with a post that requires hours of going to other sites or reading Novel length reports.

Fair enough!

The problem with "facts" in religions is there really isnt any.

Well....I suppose that is true with certain issues, but not all. There are indeed facts to be taken into consideration in the evolution/creation debate, for example, like the fact that rocks on the ocean floor are younger the farther they are from the mid-Atlantic rift.

This openness should help us all consider what possibly could be spiritual "fact." It never hurts to learn from another's religious views. Afterall, that is why we are all here.

I certainly agree with you there.

...facts are nothing more then commonly hold opinions

It is a fact that, in my opinion, there is a big difference between the commonly held opinion that aliens are abducting people and the commonly held opinion that the Earth orbits the Sun.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Emotion? What is this "emotion"? That does not compute....

*gigglesnortgigglesnortgigglesnort*

You get hugs and frubals for being my polar opposite! (Feathers: "What are these things you call "facts" "?)

Thanks for posting such an interesting thread! It's wonderful to hear everyone's thoughts on the topic!

 

[s2a]

Mr Spinkles said:

Opinions are Nice...
...but facts are better. While all of the RF members are clearly capable of using logic to come to conclusions and argue a point, I find that without presenting empirical research, it's all fluff.

I would suppose that this is where (and when) we draw the most tangible differences between "discussion" versus "debate".

Opinions generally prevail in informal discussions, and don't necessarily call for substantiative/supportive empirical evidence. "What's your favorite flavor of ice cream?" can engage and involve many divergent opinions, but it's not a topic that especially lends itself to fact-laden, research-driven debate.

To be fair, how a topic of "interest" evolves depends upon how a given question/statement is presented/introduced, and whether any subsequent statements/opinions present specified claims of veracity or authority as support.

"What's your favorite flavor of ice cream?", differs from...
"What's the 'best' ice cream?", which differs from...
"Vanilla ice cream is the best ice cream, because it's the most popular/consumed ice cream", which differs still from...
"Vanilla ice cream is the only ice cream worth partaking or accepting, because all other flavors suck".

The first question (topic) is open-ended, and invites reply absent any specified assertions, or requisite burdens of evidence/proof.
The second question seeks a more qualified (and loosely supported) opinion, which may or may not be "debatable" (ie, "Chocolate is best, because it goes with everything! Besides, almost everyone loves chocolate!").
The third question is not really a question at all, but an assertive position or claim, whose premise would be better served with at least some basic empirical data/facts as initial support. Even so, tastes are mostly (if not entirely) subjective, and rarely enhanced or thusly rendered authoritative/definitive by any proffered empirical evidence alone.
While the fourth "question" is undeniably a straightforward assertion/claim (and little more that a baiting/flaming statement intended to engender resentment/defense on the part of potential respondents...or to merely seek validation of position), it should also bear the highest burden of requisite "proof" in substantiation of it's specified (albeit inconsequential) "premise".

[As you may have inferred, ice cream could just as easily represent any particular ideological/philosophical/religious/sectarian - "taste", "opinion", or (qualified/unqualified) "claim".]

From a personal perspective, I have no "problem" with insubstantial, trivial, or self/group-validating "discussions". Some topics are deserving of introspective examination, as they may have direct impact on our lives and perceptions in a mortal existence. Some...do not.

What I find troubling today, is that most folks are ready (even eager) to offer definitive/qualified opinion on topics of/about which they know/understand next to nothing.

How vapid (and tiresome, and useless) are these varied (general) public opinion polls regarding topics of science, government, elections, and general social policy? It's probably fair to say that the majority of people polled either don't know (aren't well informed), or don't care (having other more pressing priorities) about serious subjects that demand more than facile/superficial "opinion" (especially in determination of direction or priority in social/economic/scientific/educational national policies).

Of what particular use, for instance, is it to poll the general US population regarding the teaching of creationism/ID "theory" as somehow equally merited in expenditure of time and resources to evolution theory in a SCIENCE classroom? I mean, c'mon. The majority of the US public can't even articulate basic concepts of scientific methodology, much less what evolution theory is or isn't. Most will never bother to explore/investigate the evidence/facts that reveal the absolute absurdity of insistence in "teaching" unscientific/illogical "suppositions" as commensurately equal to credible scientific conclusions. But hey(!), they sure can expend a few seconds to validate, by faith, what they believe to be "true". Hence, we are left with the inevitable defense of "my opinion is as good as yours". Well, NO, it's not...if your opinion is uninformed and predicated on complete absence of supportive fact. Most "opinions" are - unfortunately - unenlightening, uninspiring, and utterly useless (in due course) in deriving/discerning objective facts and (useful) valid conclusions.

The founding idea (and ideals) of a representative republic (not a simple democracy) is that the citizenry chooses which elective servants (of the public's best interests and defining course) are best suited to be themselves both informed and thoughtful in rendering important choices, decisions, and solutions that the overwhelming majority of citizens have neither the time nor interest to pursue in their daily lives. "Don't tell me how the locomotive works, or what it's constructed of...just get the train to the station on time!". Problem is, both the general populace and our elected representatives would rather "discuss" (or simply pander to influential constituent groups), instead of "debate" important (and entirely relevant - whether the constituents realize it or not) issues deserving of supportive/evidential merit and substance.

Personally, without seeing the facts, I have a hard time forming opinions about things like gun control, the use of tazors, hitting children, marijuana use, etc. I can't tell you how much I appreciate it when people provide relevant facts/studies/research in a thread.....it takes the discussion out of the murky depths of intellectual speculation and gives it at least some footing in reality.

I feel your pain, but this is where I suggest that you limit most on-line interactions to substantial (and empirically evidenced/supported) premised topics of debate, and avoid casual "discussions" that often enough entail assertions of abject or personalized opinion...and little more.

Within REF, I have become especially conscious of the sub-forum category, and whether the issue-at-hand is topically relegated/regulated to "discussion" or "debate". As such, my expectations of fruitful exchange in genial dialogue are accordingly measured. Of course, there will always be folks that presume to engage honest and earnest debate...when in fact, they simply wish to reinforce/validate their (uninformed/unsupported/unreferenced/unresearched) "opinion".

Sometimes...you just gotta settle for lemonade. ;-)

[Just my opinion...ya know...;-)]

 

[Feathers in Hair]

"What's your favorite flavor of ice cream?", differs from...
"What's the 'best' ice cream?", which differs from...
"Vanilla ice cream is the best ice cream, because it's the most popular/consumed ice cream", which differs still from...
"Vanilla ice cream is the only ice cream worth partaking or accepting, because all other flavors suck".

That's a wonderful way of explaining things! (With your permission (and credit, of course), I may pirate it to give an example for a forum FAQ on how different threads are appropriate for different ways of discussion.)

 

[s2a]

That's a wonderful way of explaining things! (With your permission (and credit, of course), I may pirate it to give an example for a forum FAQ on how different threads are appropriate for different ways of discussion.)

So granted, but with two caveats.

One. You must state your own favorite flavor of ice cream in this thread.

Two. You must promise to try Mayfield's "Graham Slam" ice cream (if available in your locale), with frubals on top.

;-)

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Ooooo, a tricky one!

I will fulfill task one by proudly stating that Blue Bunny's "Bunny Tracks" ice cream is dangerously addictive and delicious.

And as for the second, I will be going out and seeing if they have this "Graham Slam" anywhere in my vicinity. It shall be a difficult challenge to eat ice cream that I've not yet tried, but I believe I'm just brave enough to face it. *juts out jaw and goes to find a spoon*

 

[Bennettresearch]

Cherry Garcia!!!!

I will now proceed to fill up pages in this forum of websites, quotes, articles, and books so that you can see the truth in what I am saying here!!!!

Sprinkles, I am a very analytical person, being a former master auto tech. However, religion is a very emotional subject. I study as many facts about religion as possible and like to hear from others on the subject. As to the subject of religion, I have a very objectiveand analytical method os self testing on the subject. However, I have also found that the path into finding the inward truth is through the emotional network, which is how one receives psychic impressions. So, in spite of being objective and analytical, I cannot discount the emotional value that religion plays within myself. This is what the "emotion" is that you cannot compute. And that is a fact jack !!!!

 

[michel]

Am I wrong or does there need to be emotion in debate ?


It strikes me that emotion can be the motivator of researching for facts, to prove a point which is being debated.

Or is it me ?

 

[Sunstone]

Am I wrong or does there need to be emotion in debate ?


It strikes me that emotion can be the motivator of researching for facts, to prove a point which is being debated.

Or is it me ?

I don't think it's just you, Michel. Even scientists get highly emotional about their positions. Emotion is fine in debate, so long as the strength of one's emotions is not mistaken as objective proof of one's position.