Cut and Paste arguements an ATS epidemic

I would like to address a common problem with modern philosophy. The need for proof becomes so overwhelming that arguments become mere cut and paste discussions of other peoples ideas that are like our own. Now I understand completely evidence is important. However, so is thought and internal problem solving and processing.

Time and time again I see people post "fact" upon "fact" while completely ignoring the other or taking a moment to process and understand the information. I am not immune to this myself. Philosophy used to be about thought process and rules of a valid argument not simply regurgitating information that can be found on the web.

I have seen many people claiming to be advanced scientist in all sorts of disciplines on ATS. There are some here for sure there are also a lot of frauds, students, and amateurs claiming to be more than they are. For me I have 2 family members who are actual physicists. 1 young 1 old. The young one being younger than me and annoyingly always 10 steps beyond my understanding of reality. I can tell when real scientists are discussing. Usually they can speak off the cuff about their focus. They don't need to google and link there arguments to death seeing as they already have the information to disprove or prove their statements and can usually put things in laymen's terms. This show that they have been discussing and explaining the subject to many kinds of people their whole lives. My brother has to come up with metaphore regularly to explain things. Why? Because he understands the subject fully and his mind can adjust the explanation to fit the person he is talking to.

On the flip side a fraud will use over technical(for the crowd they are talkin to) information to confuse the common person. These people may be very intelligent but, do not actually "grasp" the subject and hold extremely rigid opinions. Often skeptics, though skepticism is very very important. However, being skeptical rigidly because of an internal belief system is not science (more like religion). I have seen far to many of these lately not just on ATS.

So is philosophy dead? And with it rules of engagement in arguments, creative thought, internal problem solving, and internal and un prescribed reason? Can we have better arguments that use thought and reason or are we stuck in a reactive argument mode where we just have to disprove the opposing thought without listening and thinking? It seems that's what politics has turned into. I hope it doesn't infect the rest of society.

Has it?

Do you have any links/facts/wikipedia articles/scraps of paper etc. to back up your rant?

/sarcasm.



But seriously, I agree with you totally. In my experience, having access to knowledge is mistakenly viewed as having knowledge in this 'information age'.

I don't think philosophy is dead but the methods of creative argument (with a view to expanding knowledge as opposed to winning at all costs) have definitely diminished and only can result in a dualistic society where you are either right or wrong and mutual sharing of knowledge to enrich both debaters is not applicable.

As for your point of skepticism becoming religious in its mannerisms you are spot on, but I will say that ATS does have a high level of excellent contributors who don't fall into the snares that entrap so many.

Most people do not listen to the person who is speaking, they merely await their turn to speak.

a reply to: HumansEh
Thanks you for the reply. There are great discussions to be had for sure. I have had my opinion overturned several times here. I have also wasted time thinking i was debating when really was just in a yelling match.

Oh I agree. Doesn't seem to matter what is being argued or debated. There is always some one asking / begging / demanding on "Proof" or "Pics". Even when the topic is an "Opinion" of "personal point of view".

What is also annoying is when the demand for links (regurgitated internet information) to back up what is being argued over, the steadfast denial of the information due to source with out even perusing the link. Then the topic devolves into off-topic because the source is automatically discredited therefore the info has to be bogus. (Wikipedia, RT, Infowars, Natural News, Fox News, etc. etc.)

a reply to: luthier

Schroedingers cat-that is all XD

I believe that some people use huge copy and paste equations or graphs in an effort to bamboozle people so they don't question them or they post undecipherable graphs they post over and over...and there is a good chance that those people do not understand what they are posting let alone everyone else.

There is a reason why people love scientists like Brian Greene and Michio Kaku because they make physics comprehensible where as the holier than thou CTRL V's will post an incomprehensible equation like "2 over cos minus the square root of sigma multiplied by the theory of indeterminacy..." and they will claim they are right despite not having any understanding of the equation they just posted.

The internet is a two edged sword.

I have seen far to many of these lately not just on ATS.

Agreed. ATS (and society in general) is rife with people who flat-out do not even understand the concept of a
debate, yet they barge in, post their comment, and feel as if they've somehow "won" because they're being skeptical,
or in their own mind, "scientific".

i can't help but think of these types as the same sort who stood on the docks yelling at Columbus to turn back, lest he sail off the Edge of the World.

a reply to: luthier

The biggest issue I come across is that when you do know enough about a subject to discuss it intelligently, those on the "other side" (my mind is traveling to AGW posts, here) absolutely dismiss your point of view or side of discussion because it doesn't parrot what they have been taught, researched, or believe.

The truth in life is that there are always more than one side to controversial, unproven fields of study (like AGW), but you're correct, people do tend to latch on to what they believe based on a string of studies that walks their same path than allowing themselves to look at the big picture, look at all evidence and sides, and form their own opinion. And then those of us who do--well, we're wrong, because (in my example) a government-sponsored entity says otherwise.

Like you, I'm not immune to this plague, but I do try harder than most (IMO) to ensure that I research arguments and counter-arguments and studies and funding sources and agendas of organizations (etc) before I make my conclusion--a conclusion that can be changed as evidence strengthens in one direction or the other (which is what happened to me on the AGW field of study).

One need not be an expert in a field--or even work in a certain field--to be able to understand studies and research on topics. The problem is that people think the opposite, which is why people are compelled (if they want to be taken seriously) to site sources and links and copy/paste quotes from studies and experts. It lends credibility to their argument, whether it is necessary or not.

I would not say that philosophy is dead as much as the willingness to not marry one's self to a narrow range of arguments is dead. I mourn the loss of critical thinking and open-mindedness.

a reply to: luthier

Not all scientists are good at dumbing down their argument for the layman and not all students of science over use jargon.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

All very true. Another thing I would like to mention is that of religion. Religion dating all the way back to recording history had some branches of theology that allowed for extremely high thought. Like the Big Bang theory coming from a priest. Or the early discoveries and understanding of DNA coming from a priest.
Today however we have divided science and religion. The only arguments I hear or debates in public are between ridiculous staunch atheists and religious extremists. You would think science and atheism and ignorance and religion is the only combination. When in fact that's not the case. I listened to a debate between two professors one with the finely tuned universe and the other the multiverse theory. The FTU professor was extremely convincing and the multiverse theorist was also very convincing. The only thing to do was listen and figure out what it means. The points were so well delivered by both men the majority of students were undecided on who won. Mostly because its not provable. Even both men debating were forced to concede important parts of their argument. To me it is the exercise of reason that matters. Sometimes you don't win or loose. You are forced to rearrange your thoughts and start over.

This type of debate is harder to find a video of even. Its much easier and more popular to outmatch the (usually religious nut) with an atheist physicist and collect all the sensational sound bytes call themselves a genius.

But I digress.

I have seen many threads where the subject was scientific in nature and there were people arguing about it from a philosophical point of view and vice versa.

IMO the two do not usually mix well.

originally posted by: Zyphyr
Then the topic devolves into off-topic because the source is automatically discredited therefore the info has to be bogus. (Wikipedia, RT, Infowars, Natural News, Fox News, etc. etc.)

Of those sources you just listed, the only one that could even be REMOTELY credible is Wikipedia because a well written wiki article has its sources at the bottom of the screen that you can always go look up where that info came from. Not to mention, wiki sets strict standards on not having a bias when writing a wiki article. RT, Infowars, Natural News, and Fox News are all sensationalism hotspots.

It may upset you that a thread can fall offtopic while discussing the legitimacy of the sources, but those concerns are valid. If your only source for your claim is one of those websites, then you WILL be called out on it. Just because you have evidence doesn't make your points valid. Your evidence has to actually be from a trustworthy source.

It always astonishes me that some members will use the Bible as corroborating evidence to back up their social, cultural, scientific or political bias.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If I implied that I am sorry. I just find it to be common. Its not really dumbing down IMO. Its the ability to understand the subject so thoroughly you can explain it to anyone. When my brother was at Firmilab he would work on things that the titles for didn't even make sense to me. He would always find a way to explain it so I could understand what it was.

The comment about students was only that some claim to be what they are not. Experts.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Well it depends what science. Is it theoretical? Also without a backbone in philosophy, which is where every scientific breakthrough has come from, its hard to understand arguments and what is valid. You can posses lots of information and still be completely wrong because you didn't run through the scientific method (which in the modern sense comes from empiricist philosophers). Philosophy kind of starts the ball rolling by asking the question then science tries to explain the answer.

a reply to: olaru12
Yes very true but so do atheists.

a reply to: luthier

Yep.

I'm an atheist married to a Christian...imagine if I were so polarized and ignorant as to let that ruin something so great. Yet, it happens all the time.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Problem is with all the noise they are harder to find. Credible sources I mean. A lot of times the studies I read that are represented as fact by the media are very small studies or privately funded to prove their point.

a reply to: luthier

From what I've experienced, the more knowledgeable you become on a subject, the more likely you are to fall into common jargon while describing it to someone. I work in IT and we get yelled at periodically by upper management for using too much IT lingo while servicing helpdesk requests.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Problem is with all the noise they are harder to find. Credible sources I mean. A lot of times the studies I read that are represented as fact by the media are very small studies or privately funded to prove their point.

Yes, but finding the diamonds in the rough makes your point SOOO much more credible. It shows you put the effort in to find the right information AND it shows that you can recognize the difference between unemotional facts being discussed versus emotional sensationalism expanding on those facts.

Always remember that the truth is buried beneath tons of lies. That is the best way to hide it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Agreed on both your points. I just mean its hard to find people to debate with who think like that.

Also your point about the lingo. If you see someone dumbfounded can you not find another way to explain it? Or if you aren't getting your point across do you not try a different approach?