If one is convinced that a general, definite, but only subtly expressed climate exists in a forum, group, or community, how, in practical terms, can one argue that point in a debate?
I was going to provide an example, but I think it might be a distraction. If, as a result of taking part in a great many discussions in somewhere like, say, the SDMB, one is left with a distinct impression that there is a theme, bias, tendency, etc toward one particular side in an argument, or one particular mode of discussion, how can it be adequately demonstrated.
It isn’t necessarily pure anecdote - and may in fact be quite real, but distributed in such small and widespread slivers that it would be impossible to answer a demand of ‘Cite?!’ without either:
Answering concisely with a few examples, and appearing to have a weak or insubstantial point
Answering exhaustively and losing the point amid the vast morass of data, or maybe worse, appearing to indulge a conspiracy theory, or obsessive hobby-horse
People generally want concise, conclusive evidence in a debate, but it is possible to be right and have evidence that is only conclusive when appreciated en masse, and at length. Is it even possible to debate such a position?
I would say that one of the poorer choices, especially forum-wise, is the “gotcha” test. A poster makes a thread designed to elicit a certain response they expect, and then responds when it appears (or doesn’t). But the idea, at least, is sound; you can get closer (if still far away) to operational conditions as much as that’s possible, allows for responses to a particular issue to be gathered, and if you do it many times you can work up something of a general point. The problems on the other hand are that nobody likes being made a fool of, that you can be accused of altering the hypothesis after the results come in, and you won’t get a chance to try it again because everyone will assume all threads you make are gotchas.
I’d say that the best way to go about it would be this idea in general, but be as above board as possible. Don’t say what your initial idea is, but do point out it’s a test, do admit that you’ll be looking at the answers. If you feel the need to build up to a big point, perhaps a series of threads, or maybe just one with many questions/small points. That way you end up with multiple concise points you can cite, while avoiding an accusation of generalising too much (hopefully) Of course people may change their answers if they know you’re trying to build up a case, but at least you’ll be able to build it - the worst that could happen is people aren’t interested enough to respond, which is a lot better than ruining whatever reputation you might have.
And it’s probably a good idea to have a decent reputation of fairness on the issue in the first place.
Thanks for that - to elaborate, however, I was thinking more of those situations where ‘cite?!’ has already been demanded - and the defendant of the argument is expected to produce a few, very clear and definite examples of the phenomenon, when perhaps none like that actually exist, even if the phenomenon is real, but just thinly-spread.
I suppose the same principles apply in either case - it’s just that you never know when someone is going to yell ‘cite?!’ on something you thought everyone took for granted as true.
I’d have to ask how you would know you were right if you have no evidence to support your position? The problem is that you’re convinced that something exists despite being completely unable to find any evidence that it exists.
There is a left right/left wing media conspiracy, Freemasons run the economy, Black people are stupid, Psychism is real. There are innumerable phenomena that, I hope, we all accept are bunkum, but that large numbers of people nonetheless are convinced exist. And they are convinced they exist because of thinly-spread evidence.
And when someone shouts cite they either answering concisely with a few examples, and appear to have a weak or insubstantial point or answering exhaustively and appearing to indulge a conspiracy theory, or obsessive hobby-horse.
IOW if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. I’ll admit that I believe some things that fail this duck test. But I accept that I have no evidence for my beliefs and that it could well just be bias/paranoia. I certainly wouldn’t consider arguing such a point in a debate precisely because I have no support for it.
You propose an objective test.
For example, I became convinced at one stage that a broadcaster that will go unnamed had a distinct left bias, and I said so on a message board. When challenged I proposed that we observe for a specified amount of time and make a list of topics and opinions discussed and compare them to the policy platforms of two left and two right political parties. I was so convinced that I let the opposition choose the times.
I was right, the issues discussed and opinions presented were favourable to the left something like 75% of the time. Personally I think that was an underestimate, but we had agreed on an objective test and we accepted the results.
You can try the same here. Put up your hypothesis and we’ll agree on an objective test. My experience has been that message board groups are more happy to accept such in-house studies as evidence than most published data.
If you can’t collect objective evidence in some way then you actually have no evidence. All you have is confirmation bias.
Of course it is. Global warming or evolution are perfect examples of this. The evidence is only appreciable en masse. Dawkins and Gore are the primary public face of the affirmative in these debates and they both stress the fact that the evidence is only appreciable when considered en masse and at length. Nonetheless they and others debate their position so effectively that most of the developed world is convinced of both.
As I said, it’s not that evidence wouldn’t exist, it’s that the evidence would be diluted across a wide range of cases - not everything that is real and true can be aptly demonstrated in the space of a few short examples
That might work well in cases where you’re presenting the argument afresh, not so well when you’re suddenly called to defend what you thought was a generally accepted phenomenon.
It’s not about whether or not evidence can be collected, it’s about whether evidence that is spread thinly can very often be usable in the midst of an ongoing debate.
Apt examples - yes, it is possible for a person setting out to examine the evidence to see the picture it paints only when you put all the subtle strokes together, but it’s just not so easy to present that evidence in a debate, even if your opponent isn’t being deliberately boneheaded - it can be just too great in volume, and too dilute in strength to be able to whip out and slap on the table.
Someone can, without being extraordinarily dishonest or wilfully ignorant, complain “look, none of this is particularly compelling”, or “how can it possibly take this much stuff to prove your point?”
They’re still missing the point, obviously, but that’s what this thread is about - whether it is always completely possible to get your point across, when the appreciation of that point demands quite a deal of patient indulgence on the part of your opponent.
I don’t know what you mean by “diluted across a wide range of cases”. Can you elaborate?
If the evidence is widely distributed that is a strength of the argument, not weakness. For example, the evidence that when humans arrive large animals become extinct is distributed over 40, 000 years and 7 landmasses. That’s a major strength of the argument, not a weakness.
If you mean that the evidence that supports tour case is “diluted” within a majority of cases that refute your case then that is indeed a problem, and it means that you don’t actually have any evidence at all, you’re just cherry picking.
Those are the only two possible interpretations of “diluted across a wide range of cases” I can think of.
The idea that GW Bush is stupid or that the human species is biologically divided into races are thought by many to be a generally accepted phenomenon too. That doesn’t make them correct.
The fact that you thought something was generally accepted, found out that it wasn’t, and then were unable to provide any objective evidence to support your beliefs is a reason for you to reject your belief. Clinging onto a belief when you find out it lacks sufficient evidential support is neither intellectualy honest nor a reasonable position in a debate.
Once again, you need to explain what you mean by “spread thinly”> Does that mean that it is swamped by counterexamples, or that it is widely dispersed spatially and/or temporally.
On the contrary, the pro-AGW and pro-evolution side inevitably carries any debate, and most especially when the opposition is being boneheaded.
Can you actually think of any examples of something that is based on objective fact, supported by subtle and diverse evidence thatisn’t able to be readily and easily argued in a debate. Because can not.
Right. And that proves that your argument isn’t particularly compelling. This isn’t an unreasonable or illogical or incorrect position to adopt. If your evidence is weak then it’s not wrong to point out that it is weak and it’s not illogical to accept your position base don such weak evidence.
If someone argues that then they are being boneheaded. An argument sn;t weakened by requiring a lot of evidential support. It is strengthened.
I don’t see what has led you to conclude that they are missing the point. They’ve listened to your argument, they’ve heard your evidence, and they’ve concluded that it is too weak to support your position. Just because they disagree with you doesn’t mean that they have missed the point
Once again you seem to have started from the position that you are right and that anyone who disagrees must have missed the point, and then worked backwards.
We know that it’s not possible to get your point across even when you have an iron clad case. Over half the population of the US doesn’t believe in evolution
However when your opponent is making a bona fide attempt to understand our argument then yes, it is always possible to get your point across.
I think at this stage that you may need to actually come out and tell us what specifically you are referring to . Because all these oblique references aren’t making a lot of sense. If issues such as AGW and evolution can be argued on the evidence then I would have thought that anything can be.
I think it’s fair to ignore all demands for “cite?”
Those are not the the real contributors. They are like that guy at a meeting who tries to look like he knows something by always asking questions like “But will the plan work?” After a couple of times you learn it’s a cover for not paying attention.
Clearly, there is a difference between an argument meant to convince and a speculation meant to inspire thought. There is nothing illegitimate or unworthy about speculation based on subtle clues and unconnected dots, so long as it does not advertise itself as fact.
And something that is clearly a statement of opinion should be accepted as such, a call for “cite” in that instance is boorish.
But it is always legit to confront a statement of fact in support of an opinion.
You do realise I’m not talking about any specific example of an argument here, but the general idea of whether it’s possible to be correct, but find it difficult to demonstrate this to even a not-particularly-hostile audience.
I’m not sure it is, in the specific framework of a debate, especially the online version - there are things that are demonstrated by very few pieces of highly compelling evidence (and they are quite straightforward to debate) and there are other things that can only be demonstrated by the consideration of a large set of data , the components of which individually only tell a tiny, nuanced piece of the story.
The question is: in the specific context of a debate, are there such cases where demonstrating your point demands too much indulgence on the part of even a willing opponent, even if you’re right?
I’m not referring to anything specific, and I’m not being oblique.
Sure there are. Some things are obvious. But it depends on who you are dealing with.
In many cases, the cry “cite?” is not a request for proof; it is a debate tactic. They are trying to wear you out. Either you don’t bother spending the time to compile the evidence, in which case they consider themselves to have won by default, or you do spend the time compiling information which they will then either dismiss or ignore.
There’s an irreducible core of idiots who don’t care about evidence, and won’t be convinced no matter what you do. They don’t seem to have any more trouble dismissing obvious truths than subtle ones. Thus you can use their refusal to accept the obvious as a marker for the ones who don’t need to be engaged, unless the process of rubbing their noses in it amuses you.
Be aware that this will result in your getting called a troll, at least on the SDMB, but that can be ignored.
Hmmm… OK… I haven’t specifically crossed swords with anyone on this though (as previously mentioned), but I think maybe I can restate my question in clearer terms:
The patience of even the most reasonable man is not infinite.
The patience of an ordinarily reasonable man is probably shorter still.
For topics ranging from simple, through everyday, to moderately convoluted, the patience of the ordinary many is sufficient to sustain him through the examination of evidence so as to be convinced, or otherwise, of the arguments.
There exist topics/arguments that require examination of a large volume of highly nuanced data to be able to reach a conclusion.
The question is: Are there not, possibly, topics where the positive argument is correct, but for which the volume of data required to reach that conclusion presses beyond the limits of patience of the ordinarily reasonable man - such that he may consider himself having been entirely patient enough, when in reality he has fallen short of the mark?
Or put another way: If the most reasonable man in the world has sufficient patience to examine X number of pieces of data in support of an argument, is it not possible that there are true arguments that are wholly dependent upon the examination of X+n pieces of data?
I like your reasonablenessness lists. It’s so quaint.
Anyway, no. And the reason I say no to your last question is that there are arguments such that the evidence is compiled with x pieces where x represents the true number of all possible data. Thus, x+n isn’t a possibility.
But this is all sounding very cloak and dagger. “Is it possible that if I do this something will happen?” Yes, anything’s possible I suppose*. If you’re making an argument which will require this enormous body of evidence to persuade people, I suppose one has to get at its economy. Why bother? What would the end-result be for you, the discussion and us?
I think a great many people here are rather bright, but I don’t think they’re going to devote the amount of time these loose-knit tomes of data will require. Sure, someone might ask you to cite something, but it depends on what.
If you’re starting off with “my opinion is that this board has a ____ bias.”, we’ll argue about it (I have every confidence we will). Someone might even ask you for a citation. But a citation might not be necessary because of how you started the debate “my opinion is”. That pretty much ends it. One needn’t have a cite for one’s opinion, take Christianity for example. Citing the bible doesn’t count, particularly when it’s counterfactual to the rest of recorded history. But people are convinced by it.
Now, if you can cite umpteen examples that support your claim, that’s good, provided you’re honest about it. Set up a random system for examining threads. Don’t cherry pick. Also, if you’re going into this with the expectation you can convince people you’re right, you should also go in understanding that you might be wrong and will have to accept what the evidence shows.
Sure, but for most arguments, I don’t expect it’s necessary to appreciate the entire set of data in order to get on board - so I’m talking about maybe quite a small set of arguments where the necessary number of pieces of supporting data is just rather large, to the extent that it might be more than can be dealt with inside the bounds of patience and time in a debate (and that’s also assuming perfect delivery of those data on the part of the person arguing in their favour.)
Nothing in particular - it’s just a concept I was pondering.
The event that sparked the train of thought that led to my asking this question was certainly not in any way a possible example of the idea I’m trying to explore here, and I don’t have any particular course of action planned ready to put in motion when and if this thread reaches a conclusion.
I think my cloak and dagger remark is directed to your presentation. You’re essentially talking about talking, but not actually talking. Ya dig?
It’s really hard to answer a question which has bedeviled man for thousands of years; essentially, you’re asking about what would be sufficient to prove some hitherto unknown epistemological uncertainty. It’s hard to answer what minimum level of data would be required to prove some yet unknown idea.
If you want to get away from the polemic and move towards the empirical, then present a situation. It’s very hard to answer what’s is sufficient to prove something when the something isn’t defined.
Got it. In all honesty, I’m often more interested in the mechanics of thought and dialogue, than the content.
Understood. I’ve been reluctant to try to point out a real-world example because:
a)I don’t really have one in mind
and
b)I don’t think it would help - I think it would just turn into a dull argument about whether Doper P was being as reasonable as he/she ought to be, or Doper Q was trying hard enough, or whether the point being argued really is dependent on X quantity of data, or more, or less.
Then it would seem that the logical progression should be to induce someone with experience in the field, whatever it may be, and have them examine the subtle evidence. If that person is convinced, he or she can then be used as an argument from authority.