HaloNoble6 Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 Who said we would follow the rules of formal debating ala Lincoln-Douglass? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myself Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 Then what rules are you following? Do you have judges? A debate without format will soon lapse into unconstructive bickering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 Could you elaborate? Are you saying the situation would be the following? ... Yes, your description is accurate to what I was thinking, only with an important oversight: it would be the job of the moderator to ensure that the debate did not deteriorate into a series of "pot shots." Posters would only be allowed to make original points, and not redundant ones. The moderator will also have to judge posts for quality and only allow those that properly represent OO.net. This is, I submit, in fact fair because the threads will be initiated by a single opponent of Objectivism... and it is therefore the responsibility of that opponent to defend his or her own critique. I suppose that a multi-authored critique could allow for multiple defenders, but this would be an exception, and not the rule. I'd like to see your thoughts on this, Burgess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaloNoble6 Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 I think we're trying to flesh out the rules here, Myself. No one's saying we wouldn't have a format. But you called an internet debate pointless based on the presumption that we sould follow the format you just argued against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 (edited) Then what rules are you following? Do you have judges? A debate without format will soon lapse into unconstructive bickering. It is not a "format" which prevents a debate from lapsing into bickering, but rather an effective moderation with post previews and rules of conduct. It is also essential to limit the scope of the debate to a single or a very small collection of arguments. The debate would continue indefinitely unless or until the author of the critique has been proven to contradict him or herself. Additionally, if the author has been shown to contradict himself, he must formally withdraw his argument or else be banned from further posting (in ANY part of OO.net) on the grounds of being an open irrationalist. Hm, that gives me an idea: I wonder if it would be necessary that any person who makes a political point must first agree that he accepts the Objectivist position on Metaphysics and Epistemology, so as not to "put the cart before the horse." (the idea being that if they do NOT agree with Objectivist Metaphysics of Epistemology, they should debate THAT point first before attempting a political debate) Edited July 25, 2005 by Inspector Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AisA Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 What do you think of creating a subforum for non-Objectivists to present civil arguments against certain aspects of Objectivism? I think it’s an interesting idea. However, if we impose all of the constraints I've read here so far -- namely, adherence to the axioms, remaining civil, staying on topic, remaining philosophic/eschewing statistics and equal treatment for all participants -- I don't think you will get many non-Objectivists to participate, at least not for long. How many people at the organizations Felipe mentioned -- Democratic Underground, The New Republic, People in Action – would even agree to the axioms? In my experience with both leftists and conservatives, their argumentative techniques consist largely of evading such constraints. They deny the possibility of axioms (“no one can know anything for certain”), dispense with civility (argument from intimidation, ad hominem, smears, straw men, etc.), change the subject ( conflate all sorts of things), and remain stubbornly concrete-bound ("that might work in theory but not in reality"). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgessLau Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 [...] it would be the job of the moderator to ensure that the debate did not deteriorate into a series of "pot shots." Posters would only be allowed to make original points, and not redundant ones. The moderator will also have to judge posts for quality [...] You must be assuming moderator preview as a gate through which every debater must pass a post. You mentioned preview before, and now I see what you mean. With or without prereview responsibilities, the moderator will be very busy. Passing judgment on a post's originality and "quality" is very time-consuming. Are you envisioning something like the following? -- On Monday the thread opens with Nimble's first post on the philosophical topic he has selected (say, "We need to strike a balance between egoism and altruism."). Perhaps later that same day, the designated moderator reviews and accepts his post. It appears in the visible thread, for everyone to read. On Tuesday, the moderator examines the list of responding posts from supposed Objectivists in OO. There are 24 posts waiting in the queue. He reads and evaluates all of them, over a three or four hour period, rejecting 21, and letting three pass through into the visible thread. That same day or perhaps on Wednesday, Nimble responds to the three posts. And so forth. [...]and only allow those that properly represent OO.net. Why do you say "represent OO.net" rather than "Objectivism"? My observation leads me to infer that many members of the OO forum are not Objectivists, either through conviction or, becaue they are new to Objectivism, through ignorance of Objectivism's basic principles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 (edited) I think it’s an interesting idea. However, if we impose all of the constraints I've read here so far -- namely, adherence to the axioms, remaining civil, staying on topic, remaining philosophic/eschewing statistics and equal treatment for all participants -- I don't think you will get many non-Objectivists to participate, at least not for long. My response to this likely scenario is "so what?" If nobody is willing to debate on those terms, then no debate SHOULD take place. Argument HAS to be based on reference to ideas commonly held by both sides. Without that, argument is logically impossible. If nobody is willing to debate on those terms, then so be it. I would be satisfied with that result. Edited July 25, 2005 by Inspector Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 (edited) Are you envisioning something like the following? -- Yes. And I agree with your assessment that it will be VERY time consuming. If someone wants this to happen, he or she will have to volunteer a good deal of his or her time to make it happen properly. Why do you say "represent OO.net" rather than "Objectivism"? My observation leads me to infer that many members of the OO forum are not Objectivists, either through conviction or, becaue they are new to Objectivism, through ignorance of Objectivism's basic principles. I wondered whether anyone would catch that! I meant simply not to presume that we speak for Objectivism, as such. (because as I understand it we cannot do so, as Objectivism is the closed system of philosophy created by Ayn Rand. Do please correct me if I am wrong.) Edited July 25, 2005 by Inspector Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPW Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 I apologize, it was a genuine error to use that. I didn't realize that Objectivists had a different definition of knowledge. When I think of knowledge, I think of it as defined as "justified, true belief." Again I apologize. *Please be aware that my area of expertise is economics, not epistemology. You will have to direct me to an Objectivist definition of knowledge sometime. Objectivism rejects "justified, true belief" as a definition of knowledge. Knowledge is not a species of belief; in my view, it is a species of "awareness." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AisA Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 My response to this likely scenario is "so what?" If nobody is willing to debate on those terms, then no debate SHOULD take place. Argument HAS to be based on reference to ideas commonly held by both sides. Without that, argument is logically impossible. Oh, I quite agree. I am merely pointing out that the first debate that will take place will be over the constraints themselves -- and I am predicting it won't get past that point. However, it will not hurt to ask the other parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgessLau Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 If nobody is willing to debate on those terms, then so be it. I would be satisfied with that result. My first response to your statement was: But how does that help us achieve our purposes? I specified my purposes earlier: Benefit Objectivists in OO by (1) giving them a chance to practice debating; and (2) show Objectivists here the enormous variety of arguments (and rhetorical tricks) that non-Objectivists use. The idea that integrates these two purposes is to provide training for intellectual activists. I sense now that you see some other purpose for having a debate (if someone meets all of your qualifications -- which I think would be impossible). If so, what is it? One idea that should never be a purpose of such a debate is the hope that it will "change the mind" of the non-Objectivist debater. That hope, as you know, is almost always vain. I suggest that, before deciding any other issue here, OO moderators involved must decide what the purpose(s) of the debate is. Purpose sets context. Everything else flows from that -- format, rules, topics, and so forth. So, let's discuss the issue of purpose(s) first and then let Felipe decide (if he hasn't already). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgessLau Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 I meant simply not to presume that we speak for Objectivism, as such. (because as I understand it we cannot do so, as Objectivism is the closed system of philosophy created by Ayn Rand. Do please correct me if I am wrong.) I think your concern is valid. The solution, though, is simple. The debate rules (which I think should be a separate section of the existing Forum Rules) would state that the speaker for the Objectivist side is not speaking for Objectivism -- only Ayn Rand could have done that, and now we have only her published writings -- but for his own understanding of it. Yes, Objectivism -- as the philosophy which Ayn Rand created -- is a closed system. Kantianism ("the critical philosophy," I suppose he would call it) is likewise a closed system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgessLau Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 (edited) Argument HAS to be based on reference to ideas commonly held by both sides. Without that, argument is logically impossible. If "argument" here means "debate," then I disagree. True, for a debate to reach resolution -- or even merely address the same points! -- the debaters must be working from the same context (that is, basic, context-setting principles). However, as a social event, debate can take place even between the most disparate (though still sane) opponents. For example, the phrase "reason/faith debate" names a valid idea in the sense of a socio-intellectual event. Of course agreement or other resolution is impossible if the debaters are radicals -- say Kierkegaard vs. Rand. This approach -- seeing a debate here as a socio-intellectual event -- ties in with my purpose for such a debate in OO -- as training for intellectual activists planning to carry their ideas into society at large. Whether others here share that purpose remains to be seen. Edited July 25, 2005 by BurgessLau Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 My first response to your statement was: But how does that help us achieve our purposes? I specified my purposes earlier: Benefit Objectivists in OO by (1) giving them a chance to practice debating; and (2) show Objectivists here the enormous variety of arguments (and rhetorical tricks) that non-Objectivists use. The idea that integrates these two purposes is to provide training for intellectual activists. Once again, you have honed in on an important point. I have reached my position through my experience as an administrator of a forum with a similar subforum, and I put those rules forward as a means to avoid the problems and "dirty tricks" and overall disintegration that I have seen takes place in such a subforum. Interestingly enough, as you point out, though it was not my intention to do so, I have arrived at a point where people would not be able to 1) practice debating (because not much debate would take place, and the debate would be already mostly won by the rules) or 2) Observe the variety of arguments and tricks that non-Objectivists use. (because such tricks would be forbidden) I do think that my ideas for the subforum would provide a different, and also valuable purpose. Perhaps even a more valuable one: that of showing that the arguments of non-Objectivists rely on "rhetorical tricks" and cannot stand up to a scrupulous environment. It would show that they CANNOT argue on rational terms. I submit that to argue with non-Objectivists (by which I mean the ones that would not accept the terms I set forth) on their own terms is to surrender the debate to them at the very beginning. Even if my terms were not in place, every debate would end the same way: we would trace the critiquer back to those premises, which he would disagree with, and the moderator would have to conclude that since the parties disagreed on basic Axioms, that no debate was possible. The idea that it is necessary, productive, or proper to debate with people without first establishing a common ground on which both parties agree is, I think, a flawed one. I guess that I just wanted to nip that one in the bud and set the rules out at the beginning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 I think your concern is valid. The solution, though, is simple. Thank you, and I agree with the rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 This approach -- seeing a debate here as a socio-intellectual event -- ties in with my purpose for such a debate in OO -- as training for intellectual activists planning to carry their ideas into society at large. Whether others here share that purpose remains to be seen. I am intrigued by your purpose and how you think it would be possible to carry it out, given the problems I have illustrated. It is true that in society at large, there will be no such rules in place, and so a different approach is necessary to prepare new intellectuals for such debates. If we can establish a system that allows for such training while still keeping everything under control, I think that would be valuable. Perhaps we should not require agreement with genetically antecedent principles (other than the axioms), so that our new intellectuals can practice tracing the errors of their opponents "up the chain." But I still maintain that once the debate reaches a disagreement on the fundamental axioms, that a moderator should step in, explain the axiom in question, make it clear that no further debate is possible, and close the thread. Also, re: argument vs rational debate, yes I stand corrected. While argument is possible, a rational debate is not. We can make it the job of our new intellectuals, however, to do the tracing to the common ground or lack thereof, just as they will have to do out in the world! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted July 26, 2005 Report Share Posted July 26, 2005 (edited) I’m all for having a “debate forum” on this site. By the way, there are plenty of interesting topics that Objectivists can debate on – it’s not necessary for us to bring in non-Objectivists to have an interesting argument. I have radical views on a variety of issues – I’m sure I could find many non-trivial topics to debate other members on, and I'm sure that many others could as well. Edited July 26, 2005 by GreedyCapitalist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted July 26, 2005 Report Share Posted July 26, 2005 I did Lincoln Douglas debate for three years myself, but that format is not suited for the web. A simple statement-response-statement format with a reply-limit of 24 hours and a maximum of about three responses per side (with optional extension) would suffice. To make it interesting, we could allow short posts from the members at large to comment on each rebuttal. Instead of a judge, there would be a moderator, whose only function would be to make sure that debate and forum rules are observed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nimble Posted July 27, 2005 Report Share Posted July 27, 2005 So, when might this happen? Also, for the person who said that Objectivism holds knowledge to be a form of awareness rather than a form of belief--I liked that idea, although you left it very vague. Could you please point me toward an Objectivist definition of knowledge. I know Rand probably defined it in some essay somewhere. And, if she didn't that would just be weird. Maybe Peikoff gave a definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proverb Posted July 27, 2005 Report Share Posted July 27, 2005 To answer your quetions on the concept of 'knowledge' refer to this book: Introdution to Objectivist Epistemology Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proverb Posted July 27, 2005 Report Share Posted July 27, 2005 Initially I had questions as to the value to be gained from a debate forum. However, to allow those who have a more aggressive attitude (i.e. the poster "mperkel") in their questions about Objectivism to have their voice heard would ultimately bring in people who would otherwise be turned away because of the policy on debate in this forum. I am supporting this idea and would be glad to help in any way I can. Please PM me if their is something I can do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgessLau Posted July 28, 2005 Report Share Posted July 28, 2005 (edited) Could you please point me toward an Objectivist definition of knowledge. I know Rand probably defined it in some essay somewhere. All you need to do, Nimble, is open your copy of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, to p. 35, and read the second full paragraph. Edited July 28, 2005 by BurgessLau Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgessLau Posted July 28, 2005 Report Share Posted July 28, 2005 (edited) I’m all for having a “debate forum” on this site. By the way, there are plenty of interesting topics that Objectivists can debate on – it’s not necessary for us to bring in non-Objectivists to have an interesting argument. [bold added for emphasis.] We could stage debates between Objectivists in this forum and non-Objectivists already in this forum, who now are prohibited (rightly) from arguing for their non-Objectivist positions. (Post 17 in this thread is evidence -- in a convoluted sort of way -- of their presence in OO.net.) Another possibility that would meet the purpose of the debate forum -- to train intellectual activists through participating in or observing debates with non-Objectivists -- is to have an Objectivist volunteer to be a Devil's Advocate. BTW, being a DA is the ultimate test for whether one understands the other side's arguments. Edited July 28, 2005 by BurgessLau Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cole Posted July 29, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2005 We could stage debates between Objectivists in this forum and non-Objectivists already in this forum, who now are prohibited (rightly) from arguing for their non-Objectivist positions. (Post 17 in this thread is evidence -- in a convoluted sort of way -- of their presence in OO.net.) I'm not following. If the non-Objectivist positions being supported are the same, then why should previous registration with the forums be a requirement? It is their registration date- not the position being argued- that should be the standard in determining acceptance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.