From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Fri Apr 04 2003 - 13:08:24 MST
--- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury@aeiveos.com> wrote:
> How do we promote discussions based on "facts" (or
> perhaps
> qualify them when the facts may be open to debate)?
>
> This may get very hard -- even considering the
> relatively neutral
> topic of cosmology -- recent articles have created
> questions about
> everything from the shape (and lifetime) of the
> universe to cosmic
> ray particle densities. If one can't count on the
> "facts" of the
> universe itself -- what "facts" can you count on?
Indeed, and Damien makes a good point about how some
people are not even open to the idea of considering
evidence that counters their point of view in the
first place.
Debate - honest, rational debate - requires commitment
from both sides. If you enter a situation where the
other side is determined not to be convinced,
including such things as rejecting as lies any facts
you supply, refusing to evaluate any logic you
provide,
and so forth, then you can not change the other
person's mind, at least at that time on that
subject.In those situations, if convincing the person
is truly
important, the solution is to find what channels for
input said person's memes have left. Say, if someone
would believe what appeared to be God (or Allah, or
whatever diety), without any rational filters, then
the solution is to appear to be God. (I recall a
prankish example of this in a certain movie - Wierd
Science, was it? Prankish, but effective.)
Unfortunately, unless said person can be convinced to
start judging evidence, even such that leads to
distasteful conclusions, this is mere manipulation,
and does not have debate's useful feedback/warning
when one's own ideas are at variance with reality.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 04 2003 - 13:15:02 MST