When debating, we should always use the rules of Boolean logic / algebra

[Valjean]

But the lack of data is inherent to the topic of emotions. We patently cannot have the necessary "data". Which means that the methodology is non-efficacious for such cases.

But, apart from their neurochemical physiology, are emotions even reducible to objective data? Are they relevant to discussions of objective reality?

 

[Shaul]

I don't think I'm being pedantic to say that debate, discussion, and argument should be distinct from each other.

As I read your posts, it seems to me you're putting discussion and argument into the same category as debate? Maybe I'm reading you wrong?

With that said, I think that there are aspects of emotions that could be debated. Not all, but some.

I am using a definition as found in dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster which defines a debate as "a contention by words or arguments" and "a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides" and as defined by the American Debate League which defines a debate as, "A debate is an organized argument or contest of ideas in which the participants discuss a topic from two opposing sides. Those who agree with this statement or idea are the "Pro" side. Those who will not agree with this statement or idea are the "Con" side. Each side will show in an organized and clever way why they believe to have the right answers. They will use examples and evidence to support their ideas while working towards a conclusion." These definitions fully comport with non-logical methods.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There are things which are not subject to logic. Therefore it is illogical to suggest that logic, whether boolean or another kind, should always be used.

Someone needs to seriously make sure Hell hasn't froze over because we agree on something, lmao.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It says everything words can and can't say.

 

[icehorse]

I am using a definition as found in dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster which defines a debate as "a contention by words or arguments" and "a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides" and as defined by the American Debate League which defines a debate as, "A debate is an organized argument or contest of ideas in which the participants discuss a topic from two opposing sides. Those who agree with this statement or idea are the "Pro" side. Those who will not agree with this statement or idea are the "Con" side. Each side will show in an organized and clever way why they believe to have the right answers. They will use examples and evidence to support their ideas while working towards a conclusion." These definitions fully comport with non-logical methods.

I think the key word in your definition is "evidence", correct?

 

[icehorse]

It says everything words can and can't say.

Perhaps I should have clicked to this earlier. Would you say you're a supporter of post-modern, post-truth orientations?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Perhaps I should have clicked to this earlier. Would you say you're a supporter of post-modern, post-truth orientations?

Post-truth, no. There are, objectively speaking, many known truths. But the post-modern philosophy (it also refers to an art movement) is correct in that basically many things don't have a concrete meaning.
For example, we've been accurately predicting eclipses and soltices for a very long time now. This is because those things are bound to the Laws of Nature. But the definition of a planet is none of that, and entirely subject to human understanding and interpretation. This is why the debate of Pluto's status as a planet actually still continues.

Debate over Pluto’s planet status still carries on

Managing editor Erin Wayman discusses the challenges of classification in science, from Pluto's planet status to the definition of life.

www.sciencenews.org

 

[icehorse]

Post-truth, no. There are, objectively speaking, many known truths. But the post-modern philosophy (it also refers to an art movement) is correct in that basically many things don't have a concrete meaning.
For example, we've been accurately predicting eclipses and soltices for a very long time now. This is because those things are bound to the Laws of Nature. But the definition of a planet is none of that, and entirely subject to human understanding and interpretation. This is why the debate of Pluto's status as a planet actually still continues.

Debate over Pluto’s planet status still carries on

Managing editor Erin Wayman discusses the challenges of classification in science, from Pluto's planet status to the definition of life.

www.sciencenews.org

Fair enough, thanks.

So I'm curious to know why you seem to be critical of this thread?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

IHere's a common rule that gets broken a lot:

If a poster says something like: "Since A and B are true, then C must be true." (Of course that statement might be wrapped in all sorts of additional words. so we have to be able to reduce the claim down to what I've said above.)

The important point here is that - for the sake of civil debate / discussion - if EITHER A or B is false, then C has not been proven.

<yawn>

Having spent too any years in digital design and embedded systems programming, let me just note that there are trivial boolean systems in which​

1. if A and B are true, the C must be true, and
2. if EITHER A or B is false, then C is likewise true so long as the other input is true.

It called an OR-gate. Carry on ... ​

</yawn>

Tomorrow we can discuss the ever popular XOR function.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Fair enough, thanks.

So I'm curious to know why you seem to be critical of this thread?

As not all debates as based in logic. Like the best Doctors. We Whovians tirelessly defend our pick, but that debate is based in emotion and is not a debate that can be logically framed. Amd to try to apply it is to forget we are human amd thus emotional beings.

 

[icehorse]

<yawn>

Having spent too any years in digital design and embedded systems programming, let me just note that there are trivial boolean systems in which​

1. if A and B are true, the C must be true, and
2. if EITHER A or B is false, then C is likewise true so long as the other input is true.

It called an OR-gate. Carry on ... ​

</yawn>

Tomorrow we can discuss the ever popular XOR function.

Sure, but RFers frequently break the simpler rules, so it would be good to start there...

(and fwiw, i wrote real time, multi-user OSs for a couple of years)

 

[icehorse]

As not all debates as based in logic. Like the best Doctors. We Whovians tirelessly defend our pick, but that debate is based in emotion and is not a debate that can be logically framed. Amd to try to apply it is to forget we are human amd thus emotional beings.

Here on RF we have forums dedicated to different categories of talk. We have debate forums, discussion forums and uncategorized forums. I'm specifically talking about debates.

I understand that emotions are hard (not impossible) to falsify, but I'm not sure I understand why debates that include emotions would need to suspend logic? Can you give an example?

 

[Shaul]

I think the key word in your definition is "evidence", correct?

Not really, no. At any rate "evidence" isn't synonymous with logical evidence. Non-logical evidence is a kind of evidence too. It is simply evidence used in non-logical arguments.

 

[icehorse]

Not really, no. At any rate "evidence" isn't synonymous with logical evidence. Non-logical evidence is a kind of evidence too. It is simply evidence used in non-logical arguments.

I'm struggling to think of examples of what you're talking about? Could you cook up an example or two?

 

[Shaul]

I'm struggling to think of examples of what you're talking about? Could you cook up an example or two?

Example one, debate whether the fictional character Rhett Butler in Gone With the Wind truly loved Scarlett O'Hara.

Example two, debate the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

Example three, debate whether Gertrude Stein's phrase "A rose is a rose is a rose" is true poetry or mere claptrap.

Honestly, I cannot believe that anyone could never have encountered a debate that was incompatible with the use of logic. It is as if to suppose logic alone could answer all of life's questions. Ridiculous.

 

[blü 2]

I sometimes see debates on RF and the posters seem to either be unaware of boolean logic / boolean algebra, or they think they can ignore it.

It strikes me that if we don't use boolean logic, we can't really have any useful, fun debates or discussions. (Unless perhaps we're in the games forum.)

Here's a common rule that gets broken a lot:

If a poster says something like: "Since A and B are true, then C must be true." (Of course that statement might be wrapped in all sorts of additional words. so we have to be able to reduce the claim down to what I've said above.)

The important point here is that - for the sake of civil debate / discussion - if EITHER A or B is false, then C has not been proven.

By extension, if a poster says: "Since A, and B, and C are true, then D is true", then ALL of A, B, and C must be true, or D is unproven.

There are many other rules, e.g. how to use "or", but this seems like a start...

The obligation to demonstrate the correctness of any claim is on the claimant,

but most arguments aren't presented by syllogism or sorites

and instead what's required is a satisfactory demonstration of the claim in reality

which brings into play the question of which sources carry authority (eg papers in Nature) or some authority (eg Pew Research surveys) or no authority (eg Answers in Genesis) &c

thus there arise many cases where it's legitimate to say, outside of the frame of the syllogism, claimant, you haven't established your claim.

(Then the claimant replies, Have so! The opponent replies, Have not! The claimant responds, Have so! ─ and so on, as with debates in Congress.)

 

[icehorse]

Example one, debate whether the fictional character Rhett Butler in Gone With the Wind truly loved Scarlett O'Hara.

Example two, debate the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

Example three, debate whether Gertrude Stein's phrase "A rose is a rose is a rose" is true poetry or mere claptrap.

Honestly, I cannot believe that anyone could never have encountered a debate that was incompatible with the use of logic. It is as if to suppose logic alone could answer all of life's questions. Ridiculous.

No need for snark, jeez.

It appears to me that we're just disagreeing on semantics. I would categorize all of your examples above as discussion topics, not debate topics.

Let me ask you this: Do you make a distinction between discussions and debates? If so, what?

Some further thoughts...

While walking the dog, I found I could imagine either a debate or a discussion with any of your topics as examples.

So if a person says "I feel X about Scarlet", I would say that that's an unfalsifiable claim, and I'd call that part of a discussion.

But if a person says "Since Rhett and Scarlett are together 18 times in the novel, I think Rhett loved Scarlett", that starts to become a falsifiable claim. Not black and white to be sure.

But I'd say discussions can proceed when unfalsifiable claims are made, but debates cannot.

And claims almost always - implicitly or explicitly - take the broad form of "if X then Y", and we're back to logic

 

[icehorse]

The obligation to demonstrate the correctness of any claim is on the claimant,

I agree. What I've been seeing a lot recently is that an apologist is NOT recognizing that they are apologizing for one or more claims, even if those claims are assumed / implied.

 

[Heyo]

Sure, but RFers frequently break the simpler rules, so it would be good to start there...

Yep, I just recently had an interlocutor who struggled with a double negative. (!(!(A))=A)
Logic is hard and not everyone gets it.
But what exactly are you supposing? Excluding posters who failed a test on formal logic fallacies from debate forums?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Can you give an example?

I just did in the post you replied to.