Debating debating!

[Stoid]

*Originally posted by xenophon41 *
**

If you accept the given (for purposes of discussion) that “mangles” means “makes more speaking mistakes than average,”

I do not. I think “mangles” (in this context) means “makes noticeable speaking mistakes.” **

Indeed, xeno, my friend! In this and every possible context I can imagine! The word “mangles” implies nothing having to do with frequency or comparison with others, it is merely a more amusing way to state the fact…

You’re doing an ** outstanding ** job, far better than I could do myself, were I so inclined. Do carry on, please!

(And Meaglin, and Gadarene, et al… Just super! )

Stoid

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by Gadarene *
Scylla, let me see if I’m following you here (or if I’m “getting ahead of myself”):

Do you think I’ve been unwilling to concede a point in the past?

Be patient a moment, I might learn something.

[Gadarene]

Do you think I’ve been unwilling to concede a point in the past?

Frankly? It depends on the point.

Be patient a moment, I might learn something.

As you wish. You can get back to me whenever you’re ready.

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by Stoid *

*Originally posted by xenophon41 *
**

If you accept the given (for purposes of discussion) that “mangles” means “makes more speaking mistakes than average,”

**
I do not. I think “mangles” (in this context) means “makes noticeable speaking mistakes.”

Indeed, xeno, my friend! In this and every possible context I can imagine! The word “mangles” implies nothing having to do with frequency or comparison with others,

If it has nothing to do with frequency or comparison to others than in what fashion is it unusual enough to make it noticeable? Or, is this an example of after-the-fact revisionism?
(edited to fix vB code)

[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 11-06-2001 at 06:52 PM]

[Maeglin]

No, no accusation implied stated or otherwise conveyed. Sorry if I gave you that impression.

Ok, I am glad the air is clear then.

I wouldn’t mind seeing more of your translation, but it reads like the good qualities of Rhys to me, as you seem to have captured tone and subtext with similar skill to my ear.

The Rhys translation, according to a little Google research, is the one still preferred. I don’t know if there have been any authoritative ones since 1954.

As for my translation, well, 1354a is the very first paragraph of the entire work. It’s all I did. I suspected that knowing my friend Aristotle, he would neatly state what he intended to discuss in the very beginning. I haven’t translated beyond that point at all.

Time permitting I can do a bit more, but my skills have grown rusty in a year and a half of disuse. It just takes a bloody long time to do short passages. I shudder to think of what I would do with Plato.

As for the debate, Gadarene neatly summarized what appears to have happened. After the initial appeal to authority was rejected, you seem to have switched gears.

My answer to your above query is simple, I suppose. Aristotle simply did not study mathematics as we do today. The Hellenistic natural philosophers clearly considered mathematics a science, for it revealed to them truths about the natural world. I don’t have a text of Euclid on hand, but if I ever find one, I’ll get a cite for you.

Likewise with medicine. The very word epistemon implies a knowing of something concrete, rather than a talent or skill. Aristotle uses the phrase eipein epistemon, which means to use specialized, scientific terminology.

So while rhetoric can be systematized, it is not a science, for it deals with no specific branch of human knowledge. As Aristotle even says, some people can succeed by practice and some people are just naturally good at it.

Aristotle does not believe the same is true about zoology or metaphysics.

MR

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by Scylla *

The point of the OP, as I understand it, is that most debates (and practically all meaningful ones) will turn on an interpretation of facts, or a conclusion drawn from facts. And that these interpretations and conclusions will be subjective and dependent on the judgement of the observer, hence unprovable. Do you disagree with this?

I dunno. Not necessarily. I guess there are circumstances where both sides of a debate are equally meritorious and you cannot meaningfully distinguish which is the “best” answer. I would think these cases would tend to be pretty rare.

More often would occur where one side of the debate is superior logically compared to the other or neither are particularly good.

I’m confused here. I’ve not said that both sides are likely to be equally meritorious. I too agree that most often one side is more likely. The point is that the judgement of which side is more meritorious is a subjective one which cannot be proved. It is a judgement in the mind of the debator or observer as to which explanation of the facts is more reasonable. There is no purely objective way to conclude that one side has proved their case. Therefore, it is merely an opinion.

[IzzyR]

I would also add that anyone who says “George Bush mangles the English language on a fairly regular basis”, suggests that the explanations might be that:

“1) George Bush is an essentially stupid man.
2) George Bush is just not a gifted speaker.”

and then tries to claim that they did not mean to say that he mangles the English language more than average, is not being honest, IMHO. If I’ve missed something, fill me in.

[Gadarene]

IzzyR, I guess that would depend on whether or not it would be possible for more than half the population to not be gifted speakers. (Making the broad assumption, for a second, that the only way someone is not a gifted speaker is if they mangle the language.)

If twenty percent of Americans were gifted speakers, and Bush spoke more poorly than thirty percent of Americans, then he would a) not be a gifted speaker, and b) still mangle the English language more than average.

[Scylla]

Maeglin:

Do you think the term “science” translates faithfully from the ancient Greek connotations to modern usage?

What I’m getting at is that I noticed the exclusion of math and medicine from the term translated as science and assumed that this was a vagary of translation and assumed there was something in the Greek term that didn’t translate over which accounted for the exclusion. i.e. The term science in Classical Greek specifically precluded skills or abstract knowledge and it’s use was confined to matters of the physical world.

I can boil it down to a simple question, and as you have knowledge of Classical Greek, and I don’t, I’d be happy to take your word for it in your capacity as a translator.

If Aristotle was a modern English speaker do you think he would consider Rhetoric a science?

Regardless, it looks like I am in error as, if I wished to credibly draw that distinction I should have done so at the outset in the face of the literal translation.
Gadarene:

Merriam goes with this:

                 1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance
                 or misunderstanding
                 2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study
                 <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that
                 may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down
                 to a science>
                 3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or
                 the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through
                 scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge
                 concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL
                 SCIENCE
                 4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
                 <culinary science>
                 5 capitalized : CHRISTIAN SCIENCE 

I’ve been using the term in the sense of 2 a and b and three a. The problem may be that the Classical Greek sense is strictly 3b in which case I would be in error in two senses:

1. In the literal translation, my statement was false and I made a bad assumption in disregarding it.

2. Not for being more precise in my meanings.

[Scylla]

Gadarene:

If that wasn’t clear, let me say that that my original statement was false as written, and I’m retracting it with apolologies for the error based on my own ignorance.

The rest of my post isn’t a hedge, but simply so I understand my error.

[Gadarene]

Scylla: Thanks for the classy post. Sorry I was a little curt with you. (I say using short declarative sentences!) For what it’s worth, definition 3a is the closest to the definition of science I’ve been using during this thread.

Again, thanks for the retraction.

[xenophon41]

If it has nothing to do with frequency or comparison to others than in what fashion is it unusual enough to make it noticeable? Or, is this an example of after-the-fact revisionism?

Not revisionism at all. The initial “example fact” was stated thusly: “George Bush mangles the English language on a fairly regular basis.” To support the assertion of fact, the author of that assertion cited a polemic based on the verbal hijinks of our current President. Since Stoid has verified the meaning of the word “mangles”, we know that no comparison of Bush’s verbal skills with a supposed average was intended.

Also clear is the clause of the assertion which claims Mr. Bush’s gaffes occur with some frequency. Again, no comparison with an average is offered. While it may be inferred from the assertion that Stoid feels Bush misspeaks more often than she herself does, or more often than those with whom she’d like to discuss his inanities, it is not explicitly stated that the frequency of his linguistic oddities is higher than any other public speaker’s.

(On preview.) Izzy, please see my explanations above. Stoid is claiming she didn’t say or mean “more than average”, and she’s right. I’m sure she actually does feel that Bush does such mangling more than the average public speaker, but that is neither explicit nor implicit in the word “mangles,” and is only implicit in the phrase “on a fairly regular basis.”

[xenophon41]

On further preview:

You’re a standup guy, Scylla.

[Scylla]

Izzy:

'm confused here. I’ve not said that both sides are likely to be equally meritorious. I too agree that most often one side is more likely.
The point is that the judgement of which side is more meritorious is a subjective one which cannot be proved. It is a
judgement in the mind of the debator or observer as to which explanation of the facts is more reasonable. There is no purely objective
way to conclude that one side has proved their case. Therefore, it is merely an opinion.

Here I disagree. You can evaluate a subjective argument objectively.

I’ll give you to examples again.

Michelin tires are superior to Firestone tires because their tread patterns provide superior traction in a wider variety of conditions over an extended period of wear than Goodyear. They cost 30% less and last 50% longer, provide better gas mileage and handling characteristics in real world conditions according to an independant evaluation. Michelin tires have not been found to suffer the “tread seperation” phenomena of Firestone tires.

Given the choice, Michelin tires are the better purchase

Or:

I like Firestone tires. I’ve always used them and never had any problems. My dad works for Firestone. I think the whole safety thing is Ford’s fault

Note that both are subjective arguments.

I really don’t have any more time, but I’d hope that you could look at those and concede that it’s possible to objectify them in any number of ways, qualitatively or quantitavely and discern which is superior.

[Scylla]

Xeno:

Thanks for the compliment.

Consider though, even if we accept your somewhat tortured after the fact revisionism of Stoid’s statement (which I don’t, but it’s a nice try) it still doesn’t qualify as a fact because:

1. “Mangles” is a statement of opinion derived from an interpretation of a speaking error, and not strictly factual ,

…and more importantly.

2. “Mangles” is the present tense, meaning ongoing errors, while the book only covers errors made in the past.
   If we allow the slang and you’re tortured explanation, than it would only be a fact if she said “mangled.”
   How about we use a little intellectual honesty and concede that if we look it in the face as an archetypal example of a “fact,” it simply sucks on several levels?

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
Here I disagree. You can evaluate a subjective argument objectively.

When I say “objective” and “subjective”, I do not mean to imply any bias or lack thereof. I mean, rather, that if you have two sides, in agreement with certain basic facts, and arguing about which interpretation of those facts is the most reasonable, the judgement of reasonableness is unique to the mind of each debator. He can present his reasons for believing that his side is right, but if the other’s mentality is such that another interpretation seems more reasonable to him, there’s (generally) no acid test that can prove or disprove it. Any proof exists in the mind of the debator alone.

As to your example:

Michelin tires are superior to Firestone tires

Conclusion (opinion).

because their tread patterns provide superior traction in a wider variety of conditions over an extended period of wear than Goodyear. They cost 30% less and last 50% longer, provide better gas mileage and handling characteristics in real world conditions according to an independant evaluation. Michelin tires have not been found to suffer the “tread seperation” phenomena of Firestone tires.

facts, subject to verification.

Given the choice, Michelin tires are the better purchase

Opinion again.

I like Firestone tires. I’ve always used them and never had any problems. My dad works for Firestone. I think the whole safety thing is Ford’s fault

All facts, subject to verification. (The implied conclusion is opinion).

Note that both are subjective arguments.

Both are essentially the same thing, though the first is supported by much better evidence.

I really don’t have any more time, but I’d hope that you could look at those and concede that it’s possible to objectify them in any number of ways, qualitatively or quantitavely and discern which is superior.

You could in your own mind, and to your own satisfaction, but if you tried to argue with someone who disagreed with your conclusion, you would merely be expressing your judgement (opinion).
(edited to fix vB code)

[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 11-06-2001 at 06:56 PM]

[Scylla]

I find the tactic of refusing to address direct responses and only debating by proxy to be cowardly, dishonest, and unworthy.

Cowardly, because if you’re unwilling to back it up, you shouldn’t bother to put it out there for debate.

Dishonest, because to wait and see how people interpret your statements and then select the best interpretation for your purposes after the fact is disingenuous.

and Unworthy of sincere debaters looking to improve their skills and knowledge (on both sides,) who have the intellectual integrity to give it their best shot and play the game honestly.

[Scylla]

Izzy:

Well, you are correct in that we could only objectively evaluate those arguments relative to each other if we agreed upon the criteria for evaluation.

Given that, we could. Without it, we couldn’t.

But, you made no such qualification in your earlier remarks.

You simply said that you couldn’t objectively evaluate them (my paraphrase,) correct?

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
Well, you are correct in that we could only objectively evaluate those arguments relative to each other if we agreed upon the criteria for evaluation.

I’m not sure what this means.

[xenophon41]

1. “Mangles” is a statement of opinion derived from an interpretation of a speaking error, and not strictly factual ,

…and more importantly.

2. “Mangles” is the present tense, meaning ongoing errors, while the book only covers errors made in the past.

Wow. And you call my analysis tortured. Here we go:

1. The word “mangles” in the phrase “Bush mangles the English language” is a transitive verb meaning “to mutilate or disfigure.” When it is used figuratively, as in the example, it means “to spoil through ineptitude or ignorance.” The phrase, if left unsupported by any examples of said ineptitude, would be an opinion; the word, however, has a straightforward descriptive purpose, and it is used correctly in this case by Stoid.

2. So… we must not assume this is a continuing problem based only on the verifiable fact that in a very high percentage of all of his speeches G. W. Bush has displayed errors of syntax, grammar and common word usage? Would you require Stoid provide a link to a live-feed “Bush mike” in order to verify that he hasn’t undergone a miraculous transformation since his last public appearance?

How about we use a little intellectual honesty and concede that if we look it in the face as an archetypal example of a “fact,” it simply sucks on several levels?

Thanks for the offer, but Nope. How about you admit that it is a matter of public record (fact) that G. W. Bush makes those mistakes in most of his speeches? How about you concede that it is verifiably the popular opinion that he makes such gaffes more than most other politicians? How about you go back and read the OP with a less biased eye and realize it was offered as an archetypal debate starter, and therefore is a perfectly valid example of such a thing?
(edited to fix vB code)

[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 11-06-2001 at 06:58 PM]