Opinions are Nice...

[Mr Spinkles]

I'm not saying emotion is a bad thing....nor am I saying that there must be empirical data cited in all discussions. I'm saying that if it's a question that can be addressed by empirical research, like "what are the harmful effects of marijuana?" or "what percentage of scientists do not believe in evolution?" or "what are the harmful effects of violent video games?" then I'd like to see the facts rather than unsubstantiated claims. It's nice that people who smoke marijuana think it's harmless, and it's nice that Creationists think lots of scientists disagree with evolution, and it's nice that many gamers think that violent video games don't affect peoples' behavior, but really these particular kinds of questions have nothing to do with what anyone "thinks". I think it's important to answer questions about facts with facts. That way, we're all on the same page when it comes to questions of opinion to which those facts may be relevant (e.g. should marijuana be illegal?) Once we have our facts straight, we can concentrate on discussing our opinions about the meaning and implications of the facts.

Anyway I probably worded the OP poorly....and this post as well. I'm taking 20 credit hours this semester so my posts have been rushed and poorly worded as of late.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm taking 20 credit hours this semester...

Yes, but I have it on good authority that 9 of those credit hours are from taking the same human sexuality 101 course three times.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Yes, but I have it on good authority that 9 of those credit hours are from taking the same human sexuality 101 course three times.

No no, you've got it all wrong. First of all, the course is called female sexuality. Secondly, I don't get 9 credit hours for the course: I get 3 credit hours for the course, 3 credit hours for tutoring and 3 for independent research.

 

[Sunstone]

No no, you've got it all wrong. First of all, the course is called female sexuality. Secondly, I don't get 9 credit hours for the course: I get 3 credit hours for the course, 3 credit hours for tutoring and 3 for independent research.

I'm beginning to sense why you like college so much.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm not saying emotion is a bad thing....nor am I saying that there must be empirical data cited in all discussions. I'm saying that if it's a question that can be addressed by empirical research, like "what are the harmful effects of marijuana?" or "what percentage of scientists do not believe in evolution?" or "what are the harmful effects of violent video games?" then I'd like to see the facts rather than unsubstantiated claims. It's nice that people who smoke marijuana think it's harmless, and it's nice that Creationists think lots of scientists disagree with evolution, and it's nice that many gamers think that violent video games don't affect peoples' behavior, but really these particular kinds of questions have nothing to do with what anyone "thinks". I think it's important to answer questions about facts with facts. That way, we're all on the same page when it comes to questions of opinion to which those facts may be relevant (e.g. should marijuana be illegal?) Once we have our facts straight, we can concentrate on discussing our opinions about the meaning and implications of the facts.

I substantially agree with this, Mr Spinkles. Especially the part about the importance of shared facts in getting us all on the same page.

 

[kreeden]

So ? What do you consider to be " fact "? Does personal experience come into play ? Or only term papers and the like ? Or does one need a government grant to produce " fact " ?

Wouldn't you say that someone who has used marijuana for 20 years have done their own empirical research ? Or someone who plays 40 hours of violent video games per week ? Personally I would perfer their opinions over someone who has never experienced life other then second hand . That is assuming that their reply is more then " Hey man , it's ok ". Things often look quite nice on paper , but just don't seem to work the way in real life as they do on paper . { do you need excamples of that ? }

 

[Malus 12:9]

Or someone who plays 40 hours of violent video games per week ?}

Hi Kreeden

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

yes there does MICH, because that way a person can truly defend/post the topic they
started if they are enthusiastic about it. If they had no emotions about their beliefs/faiths or what not, well, it would just be random comments, hi

 

[Darkdale]

One problem with facts, is that two people can have the same facts and draw opposite conclusions from those facts. Facts just create the object of the argument, but not necessarily the meaning.

 

[kreeden]

One problem with facts, is that two people can have the same facts and draw opposite conclusions from those facts. Facts just create the object of the argument, but not necessarily the meaning.

That is a problem ? Personally I think that is great . Individuality ... yea . I know that most don't need me to define it for them , but individually is what my avie is all about afterall . Breaking out of that box and defining life for ourselves .

Life is NOT a debate . Politics is a debate . { now there are two statements that should cause Mr. Sprinkles cringe . But I'm sure that he can figure out what I mean without an essay being written on it }

 

[Malus 12:9]

But kreeden I thought Politics had a large impact on life It's up to them whether I get my dole payment or not. LOL

 

[kreeden]

True , politics play a large part in life . But that doesn't make it life . In fact , if there wasn't indiviluality in thinking , there would be no need for politics . There is no best way to think . No right way . There are only different ways .

Which brings me back the the question , what is fact ?

 

[Ryan2065]

I wanted to rant a little and this seems like the right place to do it in.

I have just been involved in two debates. In both debates basically no factual information was presented before I entered them, and after I entered them people just decided to disregard the factual information. Is this the way people at RF operate? Please let me know now and I will go on to find another debate forum. I enjoy debates, I really do. What I have been seeing here are not debates, they are people sharing opinions and then attacking whoever has an opposing view other than their own.

I do not mind people sharing opinions without researching them. This is fine and I do it myself. The thing that makes me mad is when someone takes the time to research a topic and their now educated opinion is shot down by someone who has done no research (aka an ignorant opinion.) This seems to be the pattern I have been seeing. Very recently I went out and gathered very good research on a topic, my research was shot down right away. Not only that, but the way the study was done was critizied by someone who had never even read the study.

My final thought. If you are too lazy not to back up your opinion with facts, please refrain from debating me.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So ? What do you consider to be " fact "? Does personal experience come into play ? Or only term papers and the like ? Or does one need a government grant to produce " fact " ?

Here's a start (from dictionary.com):

fact
n.

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
   1. <LI type=a>Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
   2. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.

As for personal experience, sure it comes into play. If a person plays violent video games, and he/she is not a more violent than average person, then that is a fact. However, it would take a large number of such "facts" (personal experiences) from a representative group of people in order to demonstrate factually whether or not violent video games make people more violent. A study is a great way to accumulate those personal experiences.

Wouldn't you say that someone who has used marijuana for 20 years have done their own empirical research ?

They have done their own "empirical research" on themselves, perhaps. If a person has smoked marijuana for 20 years and they have not gotten lung or throat cancer, then I agree that is a fact. I do not agree, however, that that is a very useful fact. I would be more interested in the experiences of a large group of people studied under controlled conditions.

So no, I'm not saying personal experience doesn't count as "fact". I'm saying that such a "fact" is not very helpful. The "facts" gleaned from a large group of people studied under controlled conditions, however, can be very helpful.

Or someone who plays 40 hours of violent video games per week ? Personally I would perfer their opinions over someone who has never experienced life other then second hand .

Few people who play 40 hours of violent video games per week have clones of themselves which do not play violent games who could serve as a basis for comparison. Even if they did, they haven't gathered facts from a large and diverse enough group of people to conclude much about general trends in human behavior.

Why all the hostility toward empirical research, kreeden? I'm baffled as to why anyone would feel threatened by it.

Life is NOT a debate . Politics is a debate . { now there are two statements that should cause Mr. Sprinkles cringe . But I'm sure that he can figure out what I mean without an essay being written on it }

I think I understand what you mean, but I'm not sure why those two statements should cause me to cringe.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Hi Sprinkles, and "dooh" to you.

Your basic premise is correct and I agree one hundred percent. However, religion is an emotional subject and the entire subject of "facts" is what makes it such a volitile debate at times and causes so much conflict.

Hi Ryan,

By all means share your facts and research. My only complaint is those who try to overwhelm you with so much data that your eyes glaze over. It is important to keep it concise and to the point and add to it later if the debate grows more invlolved or you are challenged. THis is a forum and we all have equal rights so sometimes you have to be patient with those who are being difficult.

 

[s2a]

It would seem that there is either some intentionally or accidentally introduced perplexities in apt application of empirical facts, versus existential (personally experiential) "facts" or "truths".

In terms of either structured or semi-formal debate, anecdotal evidence is merited only within the context of personal experience (and rationalization of personalized perspective/opinion).

Let's say that we have one perspective lent...predicated upon the anecdotal consequences of excessive alcoholic beverage consumption; followed by such a given person driving a motor vehicle.

It may be a true and verifiable claim by an anecdotal claimant whom may "factually" assert..."I've been drinking and driving for thirty years, and have never had a vehicular accident." Upon minimal research and aptly subsequent verification, one could support such a (personalized) claim as being factual (and even "true" within the given individual's anecdotal "experience").

But would it be fair, or even reasonable, to conclude that such "factual" anecdotal evidence suggests that drinking and driving poses no enhanced probabilities of accident or death amongst those operating under similar circumstance? Not really, no.

Despite the veritable "assignation" of one individual's anecdotal "testimony" or assertion of "fact" as (presumably/assumably) demonstrably "true", it is not compelling or comprehensive "fact" in consideration of similar outcomes/circumstances predicated upon empirical data sets, or multi-faceted and methodologically controlled environments that factor many divergent "personal" experiences (along with the objective observers) into a much broader perspective of evaluation/analysis. It is factually "true" to say...that drivers that choose to drink, then drive, are statistically "proven" to me more prone to accident/death while driving, then those that do not drink, then drive.

If we were to trust to anecdotal/personalized experience alone as arbiter/determiner of abject (and acceptable) "fact", then there would be no value in drawing a reasoned conclusion from empirical data that strongly suggests a differing (and more substantially merited) "fact".

This basic methodological rationale defines the "why" in both the impotency and unconvincing nature of anecdotal "experience", or existential "fact" as (suggested) compelling/persuasive "truth". Personalized experience is a fine foundation as/in support of personalized opinion, but such experience validates "fact" only within the realm of a said singular perspective.
[Note: If any "believers" were wondering why their personal revelatory "testimonies" had little to no compelling impact upon unbelievers, now you know why. When a Christian says, "Jesus changed my life", all an unbeliever hears is, "I like vanilla ice cream more all other flavors";
Well, that's very nice, but...I don't care, because I don't like ice cream].


Empirical data and evidence is meaningless if there is no premised conclusion or logically derived supposition (that invites further review) of value or merit to propose as "factual" or "true". Conversely, empirical data sets will have no persuasive impact upon those that draw inferences/conclusions upon anecdotal/individualized experiences alone, ie..."I know what I know", or; "I've already determined my own "truth" - there's nothing you can say or present that will change that 'knowledge'". This is why "true believers" are only (or primarily) interested in anecdotal ("factual") claims of self-validation, and tend to ignore/avoid/dismiss empirical evidences that challenge/invalidate their immutable conceptions of "fact".


Anecdotal evidence (experience) is primary in substantiating/validating existential "revelations" of claimed "fact" and/or "truth" ["Another person had a prayer answered similar to my own, therefore...prayer works!"], despite the fact that such validations/verifications are neither testable/falsifiable/repeatable in methodologically controlled scenarios/instances. Religious "faith" depends upon, (even demands) from "faithful" adherents - to provide anecdotal "testimony" (or personalized "experience') as evidentiary "proof" in establishment/support of supposed "objective fact" - to proselytize their personalized "revealed understanding" as to what constitutes an erstwhile'/unequivocal "truth (in fact)"

To revisit and reinforce my prior post in this regard...this is why "discussion" can substantially differ from "debate", and why, most often enough, the presentation/introduction of empirical and objective evidence/data remains either unprovided or unreferenced as more substantiative support of assertions of "fact". Rationalists that predicate their perspectives weighted heavily in favor of existential or anecdotal "evidences", will remain at the forefront of denial/avoidance/nonacceptance of proffered empirical data/evidence that suggest any conclusion as valid or merited that suggests that their own conclusions are questionable at best...and demonstrably inaccurate/false at their worst.

It's so much easier to invoke emotion over fact. It's so much easier to dismiss empirically established fact as "emotionless", and cold or ("soulless"). "Don't tell me what your head says! What does your heart tell you?"

If this thread's participants/contributors want to get "deep" into the realm of discussion vs. debate, then ponder whether "emotions" are more/less/equal to objective/empirical "facts" in drawing a reasoned conclusion (that is existentially "true").

Even "belief" is a rationalized choice.

To me, it's not "what" you believe that is of interest or concern - however, the "why you believe"...of "what you believe" (as "fact" or "truth")...remains of paramount intrigue. If you claim that homosexuality is an abomination (against God), or that "Abortion is murder!", or that "Online porn and video games have corrupted the youth of today!" (or whatever grist you find validates the existence of the grinding mill), all I (or anyone of skeptical or "unbeliever" status) requests is veritable support of proffered empirical data/evidence in supported of a reasoned conclusion that bears and exceeds any burdens of acceptably reasonable doubt.

 

[cardero]

I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.


Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Winner

 

[kreeden]

Why all the hostility toward empirical research, kreeden? I'm baffled as to why anyone would feel threatened by it.

I think I understand what you mean, but I'm not sure why those two statements should cause me to cringe.

Sorry , I should have had a " " after the remark about your cringe Mr Sprinkles . I was refering to all of the empirical facts I used to back up those two statements . { of course , they didn't need to be backed by " facts " as I was quite sure you would get the point I was trying to make }

I'm also sorry if I came across as hostile . Perhaps I was a little defensive ? But the way I see it , they are all opinions . True , some opinions are better researched then others , but they are still opinons , usually with all of the bias that goes along with an opinion .

Which is why I don't usually debate . If I come across something in the debate forums , which I find interesting , and feel like adding my 2 cents to , I give my opinion , explain it if I feel it has to be explained , and tend to leave it at that , once my point is made . If others agree with my point or not doesn't much matter to me , as long as they understand it . For excample , I was once told in a debate that a person would not debate on the moral grounds of the subject . I however felt that any other grounds was rather silly , as most children in second grade would have a fairly good idea how the scientific community felt about the subject . So that left me wondering why the subject even came up for debate ? To reconfirm something that we have been taught from an early age ?

It isn't that I can't debate , I have been quite well at it in the pass , but I choose not to . I have no problem with debate , however I do have a problem with the manipulation that tends to go along with it , the politics of debate if you will . Having said that , I understand your and Ryan2065's problem . And if I understood what S2a posted , I might agree with that too .

I'm not so sure that I agree with " I'm saying that such a "fact" is not very helpful. The "facts" gleaned from a large group of people studied under controlled conditions, however, can be very helpful." though . In some cases , yes they can be very useful . But life is not a " controlled condition ", so any " fact " about a controlled life has very limited use . IMHO . Just as limited as facts gathered from any one source , in this case , any one person's experience . As S2a said " To me, it's not "what" you believe that is of interest or concern - however, the "why you believe"...of "what you believe" (as "fact" or "truth")...remains of paramount intrigue. "

 

[cardero]

I am moving this to General Debate section.

 

[Fluffy]

Hehe I guess my nature follows my name then . Speculation is wonderful as long as it is not given undue significance. "Facts" are useful as long as people accept them.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Yes Fluffy.

One can quote "authoritative" facts and there is still the possibility that it may be only partially fact or wrong altogether. This is the nature of science. Religion and science seem to be continually at odds which is unfortunate because it should all be part of the whole picture.