Debate Conditions

Double wank and shit chips

Debate Conditions

Postby LMU » Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:14 pm  •  [Post 1]

There was a discussion in the PToS about the conditions on debate proposed by Lee and Svan. It was suggested by Mykeru ( viewtopic.php?f=31&t=243&start=2775#p58385 ) that we propose our own counter conditions. There were three so far ( viewtopic.php?f=31&t=243&start=2775#p58397 )

1. Agrees to Clifford's Creedo of Freethought ""It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence", and agrees that asking for evidence or rejecting claims based on insufficient evidence is what a freethinker and skeptic does. Asking for evidence will not be construed as indicating anything but skepticism and will not be used to assume another body of beliefs not at issue (racism, sexism, misogyny, etc).

2. Abandon unfalsifiable hypotheses/theories and discontinue the use of "studies" and "scholarly papers", which assume said unfalsifiable beliefs as part of their premise, as evidence.

3. It could be helpful to require that they define some of their terms. For example feminism (A radical notion... or ?), misogyny (Hatred of all women, or ?), patriarchy (A nation or group whose leaders are a majority male, or ?) etc. Choosing whatever terms are relevant to the topic of the discussion.

My caveat is that #3 should be applicable where they claim that someone is "anti". That is to say, in order to claim somone is "anti-feminist" they have to provide a clear definition of feminism where that claim is applicable.


What would you propose as a condition to a debate with a member of the FC(n) or a baboon?
"Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes."
Charitable interpretation of Elevator Guy.
"They" pronouns please.
User avatar
LMU
.
.
 
Posts: 617
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:40 am

Re: Debate Conditions

Postby LMU » Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:20 pm  •  [Post 2]

viewtopic.php?f=31&p=58404#p58400

Metalogic42 wrote:Ok, serious contribution: Addendum to 2 - *require* actual studies and scholarly papers which do not assume said unfalsifiable beliefs as part of their premise.
"Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes."
Charitable interpretation of Elevator Guy.
"They" pronouns please.
User avatar
LMU
.
.
 
Posts: 617
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:40 am

Re: Debate Conditions

Postby d4m10n » Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:21 pm  •  [Post 3]

Renounce any and all attempts to hinder free speech and free thought. Publicly apologise for supporting Laden in his digital book-burning campaign against SlimePit 1.0
"Exemplum de simia, quae, quando plus ascendit, plus apparent posteriora eius." - Bonaventure

Blog, Twitter, Facebook, Google Plus
User avatar
d4m10n
.
.
 
Posts: 516
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 7:17 am
Location: OKC

Re: Debate Conditions

Postby LMU » Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:21 pm  •  [Post 4]

viewtopic.php?f=31&p=58404#p58403

d4m10n wrote:2. Renounce any and all attempts to hinder free speech and free thought. Publicly apologise for supporting Laden in his digital book-burning campaign against SlimePit 1.0
"Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes."
Charitable interpretation of Elevator Guy.
"They" pronouns please.
User avatar
LMU
.
.
 
Posts: 617
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:40 am

Re: Debate Conditions

Postby LMU » Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:25 pm  •  [Post 5]

Thanks damion!

viewtopic.php?f=31&p=58404#p58408

Dick Strawkins wrote:3. Publicly apologise for supporting Laden when he threatened to punch one of his commenters, Becca, in the face, and told her to "get off the rag and kiss my ass".
"Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes."
Charitable interpretation of Elevator Guy.
"They" pronouns please.
User avatar
LMU
.
.
 
Posts: 617
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:40 am

Re: Debate Conditions

Postby Metalogic42 » Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:27 pm  •  [Post 6]

On second thought, I'm not so sure about 2. Whether their claims are unfalsifiable might be the very subject of the debate, and we don't want to pull a "I'll debate a slymepitter only if he's not a slymepitter" move.
Skepticism is more important than Atheism. Atheism protects you from false gods, but skepticism inoculates you against all forms of bullshit. http://skeptischism.com/skepticismfirst/
User avatar
Metalogic42
.
.
 
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 12:56 pm

Re: Debate Conditions

Postby Mykeru » Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:30 pm  •  [Post 7]

d4m10n wrote:Renounce any and all attempts to hinder free speech and free thought. Publicly apologise for supporting Laden in his digital book-burning campaign against SlimePit 1.0



I like that. That should be right at the top.
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -- H.L. Mencken
User avatar
Mykeru
.
.
 
Posts: 4080
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:52 am

Re: Debate Conditions

Postby Submariner » Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:31 pm  •  [Post 8]

4. Cease and desist in all efforts to "blacklist", ban, or otherwise harm economically, people for simply having different opinions on politics or gender issues.

5. Stop creationist style quote mining of people with different opinions on societal issues.
"You free air breathing, potable water drinking, sanitary tank filling, non-qual, dinq, MFer!" - Old submarine insult

My Blog
YouTube
Twitter
User avatar
Submariner
.
.
 
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:05 am
Location: Florida, US of A

Re: Debate Conditions

Postby LMU » Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:33 pm  •  [Post 9]

Metalogic42 wrote:On second thought, I'm not so sure about 2. Whether their claims are unfalsifiable might be the very subject of the debate, and we don't want to pull a "I'll debate a slymepitter only if he's not a slymepitter" move.


If they're going to require a non-slymepitter (which is funny because anyone who disagrees with them is a slymepitter), then why not require them to abandon unfalsifiable hypotheses? If you can get them to negotiate on terms you're already interacting.
"Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes."
Charitable interpretation of Elevator Guy.
"They" pronouns please.
User avatar
LMU
.
.
 
Posts: 617
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:40 am

Re: Debate Conditions

Postby Submariner » Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:35 pm  •  [Post 10]

Metalogic42 wrote:On second thought, I'm not so sure about 2. Whether their claims are unfalsifiable might be the very subject of the debate, and we don't want to pull a "I'll debate a slymepitter only if he's not a slymepitter" move.


That's fine if the topic of unfalsifiability of those theories is put on the table for debate.
"You free air breathing, potable water drinking, sanitary tank filling, non-qual, dinq, MFer!" - Old submarine insult

My Blog
YouTube
Twitter
User avatar
Submariner
.
.
 
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:05 am
Location: Florida, US of A

Re: Debate Conditions

Postby Submariner » Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:36 pm  •  [Post 11]

LMU wrote:
Metalogic42 wrote:On second thought, I'm not so sure about 2. Whether their claims are unfalsifiable might be the very subject of the debate, and we don't want to pull a "I'll debate a slymepitter only if he's not a slymepitter" move.


If they're going to require a non-slymepitter (which is funny because anyone who disagrees with them is a slymepitter), then why not require them to abandon unfalsifiable hypotheses? If you can get them to negotiate on terms you're already interacting.



Asking for a prediction of said theory that even in principle could cause it to be falsified would suffice for me.
"You free air breathing, potable water drinking, sanitary tank filling, non-qual, dinq, MFer!" - Old submarine insult

My Blog
YouTube
Twitter
User avatar
Submariner
.
.
 
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:05 am
Location: Florida, US of A

Re: Debate Conditions

Postby Metalogic42 » Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:37 pm  •  [Post 12]

In order to get them to abandon unfalsifiable hypotheses, we'd have to allow them to attempt defense of said hypotheses as falsifiable (i.e. by letting them make "rabbits in the precambrian"-type moves). This in itself is a discussion. We can't declare certain hypotheses unfalsifiable by fiat.
Skepticism is more important than Atheism. Atheism protects you from false gods, but skepticism inoculates you against all forms of bullshit. http://skeptischism.com/skepticismfirst/
User avatar
Metalogic42
.
.
 
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 12:56 pm

Re: Debate Conditions

Postby Mykeru » Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:15 pm  •  [Post 13]

Metalogic42 wrote:In order to get them to abandon unfalsifiable hypotheses, we'd have to allow them to attempt defense of said hypotheses as falsifiable (i.e. by letting them make "rabbits in the precambrian"-type moves). This in itself is a discussion. We can't declare certain hypotheses unfalsifiable by fiat.


Well, you can if there is no way to test them or they contain ad hoc rationalizations to work around cases where they are proven to be false.

Freudian Psychoanalysis does both, for example.

How do you test the "Oepidal Complex"?

If you make claims about the Oedipal Complex, like someone marries a woman who looks like his mother, and then when he doesn't, claim that's "reaction formation" against the Oedipal Complex, you've just ad hoced yourself into non-falsifiability.

So, the question is, what are some of the non-falsifiable claims/sources of which you speak? I vaguely remember cases where something, and its opposite was attributable to "The Patriarchy".
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -- H.L. Mencken
User avatar
Mykeru
.
.
 
Posts: 4080
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:52 am

Re: Debate Conditions

Postby Metalogic42 » Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:28 pm  •  [Post 14]

Mykeru wrote:
Metalogic42 wrote:In order to get them to abandon unfalsifiable hypotheses, we'd have to allow them to attempt defense of said hypotheses as falsifiable (i.e. by letting them make "rabbits in the precambrian"-type moves). This in itself is a discussion. We can't declare certain hypotheses unfalsifiable by fiat.


Well, you can if there is no way to test them or they contain ad hoc rationalizations to work around cases where they are proven to be false.

Freudian Psychoanalysis does both, for example.

How do you test the "Oepidal Complex"?

If you make claims about the Oedipal Complex, like someone marries a woman who looks like his mother, and then when he doesn't, claim that's "reaction formation" against the Oedipal Complex, you've just ad hoced yourself into non-falsifiability.

So, the question is, what are some of the non-falsifiable claims/sources of which you speak? I vaguely remember cases where something, and its opposite was attributable to "The Patriarchy".


Rule 3 (the definitions) comes into play here. If we're going to have this discussion with them, I think rule 3 should be rule 1. Let them define, for example, "rape culture", then ask them how it could be falsified. If they can't provide a way, or they go ad-hoccing, only then can we say "you have to abandon this as evidence of anything in order for us to continue discussion".
Skepticism is more important than Atheism. Atheism protects you from false gods, but skepticism inoculates you against all forms of bullshit. http://skeptischism.com/skepticismfirst/
User avatar
Metalogic42
.
.
 
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 12:56 pm

Re: Debate Conditions

Postby Submariner » Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:31 pm  •  [Post 15]

Mykeru wrote:
So, the question is, what are some of the non-falsifiable claims/sources of which you speak? I vaguely remember cases where something, and its opposite was attributable to "The Patriarchy".


First we need a clear definition of Patriarchy. If it's " the societal system whereby men are predominantly in positions of power in order to subjugate women to the express benefit of men", then we should have a prediction that could falsify it. (an example of female privilege would do).

A condition and it's opposite both attributed to patriarchy:

Men were formerly given custody of minor children and mothers are predominantly given custody of minors today.
"You free air breathing, potable water drinking, sanitary tank filling, non-qual, dinq, MFer!" - Old submarine insult

My Blog
YouTube
Twitter
User avatar
Submariner
.
.
 
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:05 am
Location: Florida, US of A

Re: Debate Conditions

Postby Mykeru » Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:35 pm  •  [Post 16]

Metalogic42 wrote:
Mykeru wrote:
Metalogic42 wrote:In order to get them to abandon unfalsifiable hypotheses, we'd have to allow them to attempt defense of said hypotheses as falsifiable (i.e. by letting them make "rabbits in the precambrian"-type moves). This in itself is a discussion. We can't declare certain hypotheses unfalsifiable by fiat.


Well, you can if there is no way to test them or they contain ad hoc rationalizations to work around cases where they are proven to be false.

Freudian Psychoanalysis does both, for example.

How do you test the "Oepidal Complex"?

If you make claims about the Oedipal Complex, like someone marries a woman who looks like his mother, and then when he doesn't, claim that's "reaction formation" against the Oedipal Complex, you've just ad hoced yourself into non-falsifiability.

So, the question is, what are some of the non-falsifiable claims/sources of which you speak? I vaguely remember cases where something, and its opposite was attributable to "The Patriarchy".


Rule 3 (the definitions) comes into play here. If we're going to have this discussion with them, I think rule 3 should be rule 1. Let them define, for example, "rape culture", then ask them how it could be falsified. If they can't provide a way, or they go ad-hoccing, only then can we say "you have to abandon this as evidence of anything in order for us to continue discussion".


Right, one of the claims made about "rape culture" is that rape is tolerated, even encouraged. Allusions are even made of it being a male bonding ritual. The claims are so bizarre that it doesn't mesh with reality, the criminal justice system, the differential in sentencing between male and female statutory rape perpetrators and the fact that of the 300 men exonerated by the Innocent Project, a majority of them were men who spent decades incarcerated on the basis of mistaken identification alone. That is to say, if there is "rape culture" how is it that often the only proof needed is a woman's say so?

I would love to hear the definition of rape culture and evidence that is not selection bias up the wazoo.
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -- H.L. Mencken
User avatar
Mykeru
.
.
 
Posts: 4080
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:52 am

Re: Debate Conditions

Postby Mykeru » Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:42 pm  •  [Post 17]

Submariner wrote:
Mykeru wrote:
So, the question is, what are some of the non-falsifiable claims/sources of which you speak? I vaguely remember cases where something, and its opposite was attributable to "The Patriarchy".


First we need a clear definition of Patriarchy. If it's " the societal system whereby men are predominantly in positions of power in order to subjugate women to the express benefit of men", then we should have a prediction that could falsify it. (an example of female privilege would do).

A condition and it's opposite both attributed to patriarchy:

Men were formerly given custody of minor children and mothers are predominantly given custody of minors today.


That's the kicker in bold: "the societal system whereby men are predominantly in positions of power in order to subjugate women to the express benefit of men"

Here's the problem though.

They want you to get bogged down in this stuff like a Creationist wants you to get bogged down discussing the minutae of the flagellum so you ignore the vagueness of their use of irreducible complexity.

The key is to formulate general guidelines of skeptical thought, approaching evidence, without getting dragged into this value-laden stuff. It's by dragging people into this that they get people to forget that they haven't defined anything and that they are breaking the most basic tenents of skeptical thought and approaching evidence and, in fact, skepticism is the first thing they toss out.
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -- H.L. Mencken
User avatar
Mykeru
.
.
 
Posts: 4080
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:52 am

Re: Debate Conditions

Postby Dick Strawkins » Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:50 pm  •  [Post 18]

I remember watching a radical feminist on youtube talking about rape culture and was surprised that she made a good point that made me realize that there is a widespread acceptance of rape as a tool of control - but only as applied to one particular subject.

That subject is, of course, male prisons.

The threat of prison rape (don't drop the soap!) is used as a deterrent by society to turn penal servitude into a very serious consequence when someone is convicted of a crime.
That rapes occur in these settings, and in high numbers, is widely known, and there is little if any effort to deal with the situation.
I don't know of any similar situation occurring regarding rapes against women - at least not in western society.

OK, probably a derail from the subject at hand, but perhaps worth noting if the subject of 'rape-culture' comes up.
PZ Myers: "Hypocrisy is a bitch, isn't it?"
User avatar
Dick Strawkins
.
.
 
Posts: 4943
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:34 pm

Re: Debate Conditions

Postby Submariner » Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:08 pm  •  [Post 19]

Mykeru wrote:
Submariner wrote:
Mykeru wrote:
So, the question is, what are some of the non-falsifiable claims/sources of which you speak? I vaguely remember cases where something, and its opposite was attributable to "The Patriarchy".


First we need a clear definition of Patriarchy. If it's " the societal system whereby men are predominantly in positions of power in order to subjugate women to the express benefit of men", then we should have a prediction that could falsify it. (an example of female privilege would do).

A condition and it's opposite both attributed to patriarchy:

Men were formerly given custody of minor children and mothers are predominantly given custody of minors today.


That's the kicker in bold: "the societal system whereby men are predominantly in positions of power in order to subjugate women to the express benefit of men"

Here's the problem though.

They want you to get bogged down in this stuff like a Creationist wants you to get bogged down discussing the minutae of the flagellum so you ignore the vagueness of their use of irreducible complexity.

The key is to formulate general guidelines of skeptical thought, approaching evidence, without getting dragged into this value-laden stuff. It's by dragging people into this that they get people to forget that they haven't defined anything and that they are breaking the most basic tenents of skeptical thought and approaching evidence and, in fact, skepticism is the first thing they toss out.


My point is still valid about needing clear definitions, though. Like any formal debate, clear definitions prevent equivocation.
"You free air breathing, potable water drinking, sanitary tank filling, non-qual, dinq, MFer!" - Old submarine insult

My Blog
YouTube
Twitter
User avatar
Submariner
.
.
 
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:05 am
Location: Florida, US of A

Re: Debate Conditions

Postby LMU » Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:19 pm  •  [Post 20]

Dick Strawkins wrote:I remember watching a radical feminist on youtube talking about rape culture and was surprised that she made a good point that made me realize that there is a widespread acceptance of rape as a tool of control - but only as applied to one particular subject.

That subject is, of course, male prisons.

The threat of prison rape (don't drop the soap!) is used as a deterrent by society to turn penal servitude into a very serious consequence when someone is convicted of a crime.
That rapes occur in these settings, and in high numbers, is widely known, and there is little if any effort to deal with the situation.
I don't know of any similar situation occurring regarding rapes against women - at least not in western society.

OK, probably a derail from the subject at hand, but perhaps worth noting if the subject of 'rape-culture' comes up.


That's what I always think of when someone mentions rape culture. It's used as a deterrent and viewed as a joke (for example in the 2012 movie Hit and Run).
"Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes."
Charitable interpretation of Elevator Guy.
"They" pronouns please.
User avatar
LMU
.
.
 
Posts: 617
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:40 am

Hide Reply Options[Hide] Post a reply



This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
 

Return to Freethought, Atheism, Skepticism and Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest