Why discussion at DU rarely goes deeper than using slogans

[Boojatta]

Strong Evidence and Strong Convictions

When you begin searching for evidence, how strong is your conviction that it exists and can be found? If you had a strong belief that it cannot be found, then you might be motivated to search if your search were so complete as to itself demonstrate, by failing to find anything, that the evidence doesn't exist. However, if the search process could not itself provide evidence of non-existence, and you had a strong conviction that the evidence being sought cannot be found, then you probably wouldn't be motivated to search.

If all others abandon the search because they weighed the evidence accumulated so far, and they calculated the odds that anything was missed, but you persist, then are you making a mistake?

Perhaps you have insight into subtle qualitative features of reality that aren't captured in the columns of any accounting spreadsheet. If you are ultimately vindicated, then what can we conclude? The evidence that you eventually found is strong evidence, but how can you explain what motivated you to keep looking when everybody else abandoned the search? Obviously you didn't have strong evidence before you had strong evidence!

You had some kind of strong hunch, strong insight, or strong intuition. However, the strength of it isn't something that others can measure. Also, no matter how strong it is, it could be a mistake.

The strength of your convictions isn't something that you can consciously control. If you could control it, then you would be at great risk of self-deception, and isn't that the hazard that you are trying to protect yourself from? Don't you imagine a scenario of believing what is false, and try to prevent that scenario from arising? Isn't that what your focus on evidence is all about?

If your goal is to avoid deceiving yourself, then I encourage you to continue to pursue that goal. There is no substitute for that goal. So, don't accept any substitute! In particular, don't put too much trust in your "strength of conviction should be based on the strength of the evidence" slogan. That slogan cannot in practice be applied because you cannot consciously control the strength of your convictions. The slogan sounds very persuasive, but it cannot replace your dedication to pursuing the truth. How could it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121815201

The above started as a direct response to a post by somebody else.  It was ignored.  When it was edited to become what you see above, and made into its own thread, it still got no reply. Why? Well, the slogan “it’s all relative” might be a hint.  They don’t think in terms of true and false.  They think only in terms of attitude or belief.  That's why they always need to know who is asking a question: age, sex, location, etc.

[Big Dog]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121815201

The above started as a direct response to a post by somebody else.  It was ignored.  When it was edited to become what you see above, and made into its own thread, it still got no reply. Why? Well, the slogan “it’s all relative” might be a hint.  They don’t think in terms of true and false.  They think only in terms of attitude or belief.  That's why they always need to know who is asking a question: age, sex, location, etc.

I could refer you back to your other thread (ostensibly about Goldbach's conjecture and the existence of God, but really about pie), but I'll cut you a break.

Your writing style is probably the reason people don't engage you. You begin with a question, valid enough in each example, then proceed to muddy the waters with sidetracks, additional questions, and declarations of opinion offered as fact. At best, your reader is faced with a mess of questions and statements to respond to, discouraging replies. At worst, it indicates a disordered, chaotic thought process on your part.

Three simple changes that may help:

1. BLUF (bottom line up front). A military term that means exactly what it says. One statement or question, in the first sentence, with directly related statements immediately following.
2. The elevator presentation. Imagine you are on an elevator with the intended reader. You have sixty seconds to make your point.
3. Keep It Simple, Stupid (KISS principle). This is the Internet. Most of us are here for fun; those who are not are probably Cheeto-sucking sociopaths, or DUmmies- but I repeat myself. Don't try to be Mister Peabody, instead seek to be Sherman.

Your assignment: have a piece of pie, think about what you learned here today, and come back tomorrow better and smarter.

Or you can ignore my advice. After all, what do I know? I'm just a cigar smoking Dog in a fedora.

[Boojatta]

2. The elevator presentation. Imagine you are on an elevator with the intended reader. You have sixty seconds to make your point.

That sounds a bit like what is, on the internet, called "chat."

I appreciate the constructive nature of your suggestions, and will keep them in mind.

[Big Dog]

That sounds a bit like what is, on the internet, called "chat."

I appreciate the constructive nature of your suggestions, and will keep them in mind.

Negative. The Elevator Presentation (or "Elevator Briefing", as young would-be second lieutenants are taught at OCS), is a form of focused presentation. Working with a strict time frame, the speaker/writer must present a complete and cogent statement, and be prepared to answer questions about the content.

It's a skill.

[CSeeman]

Can I suggest that you logical thought process is a little off. Let me explain what i mean.

You are making the assumption that everything has a truth however many in fact most things do not have a truth. I would contend that the only real truths are those proven by the scientific method.
For example, If you drop something that weights more the air  in the earth's atmostphere that thing will fall to earth because ofthe gravitational pull on the earth's atmostphere. That is a truth and has been tested millions of times with the same result.

I belief is something that can not be proven. A person could have a very strong belief that god exists however it would be very dfficult to prove.

In the absence of evidence a truth can not be a truth no matter how strong someone believes in it.

[Boojatta]

In the absence of evidence a truth can not be a truth no matter how strong someone believes in it.

Are you attempting to distinguish between knowledge and belief? 

Can we revise "in the absence of evidence, a truth cannot be a truth" (which sounds like an outright contradiction)?

First, we can replace your words "a truth" with the words "an assertion."

Next, we can replace your words "be a truth" with the words "known to be a truth."

After a bit more editing, we obtain:

In the absence of strong evidence, an assertion (although perhaps true) isn't known to be true.

[obumazombie]

Can I suggest that you logical thought process is a little off. Let me explain what i mean.

You are making the assumption that everything has a truth however many in fact most things do not have a truth. I would contend that the only real truths are those proven by the scientific method.
For example, If you drop something that weights more the air  in the earth's atmostphere that thing will fall to earth because ofthe gravitational pull on the earth's atmostphere. That is a truth and has been tested millions of times with the same result.

I belief is something that can not be proven. A person could have a very strong belief that god exists however it would be very dfficult to prove.

In the absence of evidence a truth can not be a truth no matter how strong someone believes in it.

Some truths are self evident. To wit, rights come from God.

[CSeeman]

First of all i chose each word carefully.

The sentence is exactly what i meant it to be. A truth can only be a truth if it successfully defends itself against the scientific process time after time. Strong belief althought commendable and important.... do not reach the level of a truth.

Even thought i strongly believe there is a god the level of evidence that god exists is not such that it resembles a truth. In order for the existence of god to be a truth we would have to have some evidence of is existence.

[obumazombie]

First of all i chose each word carefully.

The sentence is exactly what i meant it to be. A truth can only be a truth if it successfully defends itself against the scientific process time after time. Strong belief althought commendable an important.... do not reach the level of a truth.

Even thought i strongly believe there is a god the level of evidence that god exists is not such that it resembles a truth. In order for the existence of god to be a truth we would have to have some evidence of is existence.

Sometimes you can't evaluate a truth on it's own merit. Sometimes you have to consider all the alternatives, then properly conclude.

[CSeeman]

I respectfully completely disagree.

In order for something to rise to the standard of a truth whoever attempts to and whatever number of attempts are proformed  following the designated process the end result must be the same answer everytime. otherwise the thing is a belief.

[obumazombie]

I respectfully completely disagree.

In order for something to rise to the standard of a truth whoever attempts to and whatever number of attempts are proformed  following the designated process the end result must be the same answer everytime. otherwise the thing is a belief.

You had better hope not many people agree with you that "We hold these truths to be self evident" is a belief.

[USA4ME]

Much of the discussions there are rooted in emotion.  This forum, and the one at CU before, documented that over and over.  Slogans fit that emotional based mould.

They certainly aren't looking for the truth.

And they mistakenly call themselves liberals and then push gov't power as the solution of most our economic and social woes.  Government is not classical liberalism!  Government is confiscation, coercion, the taser, the jail cell!  Ludwig von Mises was the 20th century's great defender of capitalism and the free society. In his book Liberalism, he said "The program of liberalism, therefore, is condensed into a single word would have to read:  property, that is, private ownership of the means of production... All the other demands of liberalism result from this fundamental demand."

Were von Mises, John Locke, or Alexis de Tocqueville to show up at DU, they would be told they were fascists and immediately TS'd.

.

[jukin]

This is easy as an Ant Farm observer for year.

If the collective hive at the DUmp believes something is a truth, it is.
If the collective hive at the DUmp believes something is not a truth, it is not.

There is no testing for the useful idiots there. it is what others tell them to believe. No further proof or debate is needed.

[Mr Mannn]

Boojatta, how did you get, 12,000 posts at DU by posting crap like that?
The only response is yourself, kicking your own thread.

I have to agree with Big Dog, you need to simplify your thread. Start with a simple idea in the first post, and build a more complex discussion from there.

That said, you're going over the heads of your fellow DUmmies. Asking them to think is a tall order.
I think you need a discussion forum more complex than a political board. Like Big Dog said, most people are on the net for fun, you are in need of a self important atheist forum. They are out there, if you look.

Apart from a specialty site where people show up for the purpose of debate, no one will engage threads like this.

[Skul]

I still like pie.

[Boojatta]

Boojatta, how did you get, 12,000 posts at DU by posting crap like that?

Let me think about that ...

The only response is yourself, kicking your own thread.

Yes, and we might now suspect that what requires explanation is how I got 6,000 posts at DU posting "crap like that."

[obumazombie]

Let me think about that ...
Yes, and we might now suspect that what requires explanation is how I got 6,000 posts at DU posting "crap like that."

And your point is...

[Boojatta]

And your point is...

Just trying to keep it simple.  Whether or not it supports any particular point of view is another question.  I was merely considering the possibility that the amount to be explained could be reduced.  My rough work: (12,000/2) = 6,000.

[Mr Mannn]

Boojatta not listening to all the good advice on this thread.

[Boojatta]

Apart from a specialty site where people show up for the purpose of debate (...)

Do you have in mind any particular website or websites?

[Mr Mannn]

Do you have in mind any particular website or websites?

Yes. But I like those sites. I have no intention of setting your insanity upon people I like and respect.

I just look at your pointless posts, your inability to participate in a discussion. I simply do not respect you enough to point you to a forum where my friends are.

Stop wasting your time here. Get off yer a$$ and look for yourself.

[Mike B the Cajun]

Why does Boojatta's OP look and read as if written by that mistress of brevity, Vesta??   


 

[freedumb2003]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121815201

The above started as a direct response to a post by somebody else.  It was ignored.  When it was edited to become what you see above, and made into its own thread, it still got no reply. Why? Well, the slogan “it’s all relative” might be a hint.  They don’t think in terms of true and false.  They think only in terms of attitude or belief.  That's why they always need to know who is asking a question: age, sex, location, etc.

I think you think you are Marshall McCluhan.

That post, when you boil it down, is more like Peter Marshall during a Hollywood Squares episode.

[Mike B the Cajun]

I think you think you are Marshall McCluhan.

That post, when you boil it down, is more like Peter Marshall during a Hollywood Squares episode.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the writings of Vestanumbers...

 

[Mr Mannn]

Boojatta. I am glad you got banned. I cannot imagine people who take pleasure in being a d@mned annoyance to other people. To be honest, I question the sanity of trolls. There's just something that aint right about you, boy.

Since you bragged about getting banned at every other forum, I'm sure you will not learn a thing from your time here.