|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
|
Being delusional or in denial is easier for the ego to deal with than weakening it by admitting fault
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
Shroomerette
Stranger
Registered: 10/12/10
Posts: 1,342
Loc:
Last seen: 10 years, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Let's take the whole karma/reincarnation nonsense. Were there 'good' bacteria and 'bad' bacteria 500,000,000 years ago? Or were there just bacteria? If one bacterium was not more morally superior or spiritual than another, then karmically they cannot come back as a multi-celled critter.
Ooooooh good point Orgone! I never thought of that before.
-------------------- Leaving the shroomery forever
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said: Ive seen you admit you were wrong.
True but not often enough. And someone who cannot ever admit such would never start this type of thread.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Sweetie, all of my points are good points.
--------------------
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: No, I was not talking about morality which is merely opinion. "Right is what I do; wrong is what you do!"
If a belief system is internally contradictory or inconsistent, then it cannot possible be true.
If 10,000 religions all claim something different, then we can be 100% certain that at least 9,999 of them are wrong - and probably 100%.
Let's take the whole karma/reincarnation nonsense. Were there 'good' bacteria and 'bad' bacteria 500,000,000 years ago? Or were there just bacteria? If one bacterium was not more morally superior or spiritual than another, then karmically they cannot come back as a multi-celled critter.
Another solid indicator of wrongness is a total lack of methodology to determine some claim or an inability to explain how one came to a certain conclusion. There are 7,9 and 13 chakras depending on whom you talk to. (Refere back the mutual exclusion principle I talked about earlier).Yet they cannot tell you how they came to that number; and when backed into a logical corner, will change their story amdnd mumble something about it being metaphorical.
Yes, there are many things that can be determined to be 100% wrong.
There are many ways to determine wrongness. Rightness is more elusive. Let's say we take the best chess player in the world, be it human or computer. Can we say that his/its strategy is the best possible? No. But we can determine that it is better than the other 6.5 billion people; therefore it more closely approaches the 'right' strategy than any known.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Shroomerette
Stranger
Registered: 10/12/10
Posts: 1,342
Loc:
Last seen: 10 years, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Sweetie, all of my points are good points.
 
No offense but your avatar is a little gross looking.
ty for the sweetie though
-------------------- Leaving the shroomery forever
|
durantz
Stranger



Registered: 05/09/09
Posts: 697
Last seen: 9 years, 29 days
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said:
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: No, I was not talking about morality which is merely opinion. "Right is what I do; wrong is what you do!"
If a belief system is internally contradictory or inconsistent, then it cannot possible be true.
If 10,000 religions all claim something different, then we can be 100% certain that at least 9,999 of them are wrong - and probably 100%.
Let's take the whole karma/reincarnation nonsense. Were there 'good' bacteria and 'bad' bacteria 500,000,000 years ago? Or were there just bacteria? If one bacterium was not more morally superior or spiritual than another, then karmically they cannot come back as a multi-celled critter.
Another solid indicator of wrongness is a total lack of methodology to determine some claim or an inability to explain how one came to a certain conclusion. There are 7,9 and 13 chakras depending on whom you talk to. (Refere back the mutual exclusion principle I talked about earlier).Yet they cannot tell you how they came to that number; and when backed into a logical corner, will change their story amdnd mumble something about it being metaphorical.
Yes, there are many things that can be determined to be 100% wrong.
There are many ways to determine wrongness. Rightness is more elusive. Let's say we take the best chess player in the world, be it human or computer. Can we say that his/its strategy is the best possible? No. But we can determine that it is better than the other 6.5 billion people; therefore it more closely approaches the 'right' strategy than any known.


You missed me entire point earlier. You are making the assumption that logical reasoning is THE ONLY WAY to determine what is right.
There are also different kinds of logic! Which logic are you talking about? And how do you determine which type of logic is 'right'?
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: Becker has an interesting take on this. I'm wondering if any of those who have read the book remember it? It's actually pretty central to his ideas on death anxiety.
causa sui project, right?
Quote:
Grapefruit said:


-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
Edited by Poid (03/23/11 06:52 AM)
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Wrong [Re: Poid]
#14168532 - 03/23/11 06:09 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
learningtofly
Ancient Aliens



Registered: 05/21/07
Posts: 15,105
Loc: Out of this world
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
It seems like people here just want to argue
Please elaborate on how to debate without arguing.
This should be good.
You of all people should know the difference between a debate and an argument. An argument is about winning whereas a debate is a process by which both sides each gain a further understanding of an issue; it has nothing to do with winning.
--------------------
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
learningtofly said:
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
It seems like people here just want to argue
Please elaborate on how to debate without arguing.
This should be good.
You of all people should know the difference between a debate and an argument.
He never said that there is no difference, nor did he demonstrate that he is unaware of the difference.
Quote:
learningtofly said: An argument is about winning...
Argument - Wikipedia
Quote:
In philosophy, an argument is a claim, or set of claims, supported by one or more defensible reason(s). In logic, this can take the form of one or more declarative sentences (or "propositions"), known as the premises, along with another meaningful declarative sentence or proposition, known as the conclusion
Quote:
learningtofly said: ...whereas a debate is a process by which both sides each gain a further understanding of an issue; it has nothing to do with winning.
Debate - Wikipedia
Quote:
Debate...is a formal method of interactive and representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, which only examines consistency from axiom, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn't the case or rhetoric which is a technique of persuasion. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
learningtofly
Ancient Aliens



Registered: 05/21/07
Posts: 15,105
Loc: Out of this world
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
Re: Wrong [Re: Poid]
#14169215 - 03/23/11 10:40 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Wikipedia is wrong. I'm not home right now but I have a textbook from a couple years ago from an Argument and Debate class and it explains it pretty clearly, I'll show you their definition.
--------------------
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Generally, I would trust wikipedia over a text book. Especially in a subject I'm not proficient in. Anybody can write a textbook, but wikipedia has somewhat of a peer review process.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
This is truly sad. What do YOU call the presentation of logical statements supporting a premise?
--------------------
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
I have a textbook from my Philosophy 1: Critical Thinking college class, I'll post the relevant info in a second...
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
learningtofly
Ancient Aliens



Registered: 05/21/07
Posts: 15,105
Loc: Out of this world
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: This is truly sad. What do YOU call the presentation of logical statements supporting a premise?
There is a difference between an argument and the process of arguing, at least in such vague terms.
Domestic abuse is sometimes the result of an argument, would you consider that to be the process of exchanging logical presentations of statements supporting premises?
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Can I get a simple, straight answer without any clutter before we procede?
--------------------
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Arguments
As we said, when you present a reason for thinking a claim is true, you give an argument. Recently, student named Kevin asked one of us if we thought brushing your teeth could really help you lose weight. Kevin had heard a report about a study published in a Japanese scientific journal that said that encouraging people to brush more frequently could help prevent obesity. Japanese researchers had studied almost 4,000 people and found that people who brushed three times a day were much more likely to be slender; and the student concluded from this that brushing your teeth could help you lose weight. When we looked up the media report of the Japanese study that's what it had concluded, too. Now, you may not think of scientific data such as those contained in the Japanese study as an "argument,", but here the data were given as a reason for thinking that brushing could help you lose weight, so they count as an argument. As arguments go, this one actually is poor, but it is an argument nevertheless. As you can see, an argument can be long and involved. Einstein didn't just pull "E = mc²" out of his hat; he had complex theoretical reasons that require a lot of mathematics and physics to comprehend, and together they amounted to an argument that E = mc². At the other extreme, every professor has heard: "My grandmother just died," offered as an excuse for having missed class. Here again, something is used as a reason for thinking something else is true, and that makes it an argument. My grandmother just died; therefore I should be excused for missing class, is the reasoning. Arguments can be short and simple like this one, or long and involved like Einstein's, or anywhere in between. It's not word count that determines whether something is an argument, but function. If one claim is given as a reason for thinking another claim is true, you have an argument; if it isn't, you don't. An unfortunate minor complication must be mentioned at this point. Logicians think of an argument as including not merely the reason for thinking a claim is true, but also the claim itself. From this perspective an argument has two parts: the supported part, which is called the conclusion, and the supporting part, which is called the premise. The premise of an argument, in other words, specifies the reason (or reasons) for accepting the conclusion. The statement "I should be excused because my grandmother just died" has the required two-part structure. "My grandmother just died" is the premise, and "I should be excused" is the conclusion. And thus we arrive, finally, at a technical definition of the most important ingredient in critical thinking. An argument consists of two parts, and one part (the premise or premises) is supposedly a reason for thinking that the other (the conclusion) is true. Critically thinking about a claim that is not self-evidently or obviously true or false requires evaluating the arguments both for and against it.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
learningtofly
Ancient Aliens



Registered: 05/21/07
Posts: 15,105
Loc: Out of this world
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
Re: Wrong [Re: Poid]
#14169357 - 03/23/11 11:07 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, i know what an argument is but I am talking about arguing which is not synonymous with debating
--------------------
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
|
|