Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

The thread in the rage forum derailed into something interesting (thanks to Necra) and I figured it might deserve it's own thread for discussion and whatnot, maybe to correct and fix some misunderstandings that will pop up here between members, perhaps some rules/etiquette will be clarified? So I'll start and include my own stance on a few things:

I posted this as a response to thread derailing and other things such as the "status" of this community, which is, I think, an excellent one:



After that I thought about clarifying my thoughts about my opinion on opinions (inception dun dun dun) and how they're best handled by writing down a few examples (that came up recently or come up prominently) and expanding:

-Someone believes in a religion
You're not going to change his mind in forum posts, period. You can however change his mind on his perception of people of other religions (yours or others) or people who don't believe in one. And the other person can do the same with the same results - that would be referred to I think as a "common understanding".

Example: I can mention that I think belief in creationism is irrational or even stupid (different from "you're stupid because you believe in X", i.e. for all I know I could be dead wrong too regardless of the current degree of certainty from science), but I know I can't change someone's mind on it - all I can do is present reading materials and such and whether or not his opinion changes depends on the person, and is to be respected IMO. And vice-versa.

Consice: don't misinterpret insulting a religion with insulting anyone that believe in it.

-Someone's occupation
The diversity seems high on this board. Whether someone is a truck driver, an accountant, an academic or whatever - if they mention it, they're most likely proud of some accomplishments in their occupation. Downplaying a user's occupation by another user is IMO not warranted at all in any case in a civil discussion or if that latter is an objective.

-Someone holds the scientific method and any enterprise that uses it with high regard
You're not going to change his mind in any way whatsoever, whatever you try. That person has been trained in skepticism and witholding opinion until facts, evidence, observations and experimental results are known since at least the day they left high school if not long before, and that's not going to change - he'll be skeptical of your methods.

Example (from experience in any online or offline community where such things are discussed....): little facts are known about X, member asks (or expects) for Y's opinion/speculation/interpretation on X. Y refuses to participate; Y is not to be labeled "stupid" as a result - Y is compiling the data or even waiting for someone more knowledgable on the issue/discovery to interpret it in a better way than Y can with his own. (i.e. @Japan thread -- last I checked no member here is a nuclear physicist, we can discuss but we don't have an "expert" on the issue, and reading the internet never made anyone a source of knowledge and understanding in physics -- what I mean by that is that no one here has the "credentials", if you will and for a lack of better wording on my part, to take over the discussion and paint themselves as an authority of any kind on the subject -- I would also disagree with an "expert" doing the same thing, for the record)

Addition of knowledge is more than welcome, and also isn't that the point of a damn community? But it can be done without any hint of hostility/etc. Something I often do when something scientific that I don't know much about is being debated is weight in with how science works, because that's worked often in the past. It doesn't mean "trust the discovery/data/expert/whatever", it means "trust that it will be eventually sorted out and cleared up in the future, most likely through the scientific method". I'm reminded of a nice quote: "Argumentation cannot suffice for the discovery of new work, since the subtlety of Nature is greater many times than the subtlety of argument."

-Someone enjoys piece of art X/game X/musical band X/etc
You won't change his mind, enjoyment of art forms is purely subjective and objective counter-opinions are irrelevant to changing their mind. Discussion of those can be interesting, but they won't change anyone's mind. A good example is people who can't get enough of WoW vs. people who think it gets boring fast after content updates. Or WoW PVP vs WoW PVE. Or people who like Lady GaGa/Nickelback/[insert band you might not enjoy here]. Someone enjoys Hello Kitty Online? So what. The list is endless and IMO that's the lowest form of debate (when it sparks) as it never gets anywhere, because it can't. But there isn't much of that on this board.

Consice: fuck that shit.

-Food
I think it can't get any more subjective than that, eh?

Consice: no point but discussion of tastes is always interesting like the above.

-Political
What's the point of a political debate if both sides won't reach a common understanding, or move towards a common goal? I've seen petty bickering and back-and-forth linking to stupid things that each side does, and to an outside observer it looks exactly as if both sides of the fence have a minority of retards that somehow get highlighted often. The good aspect on this board is that grudges aren't held between members whenever that happens, or after, etc. (also: no "censorship", and those not interested just don't participate)

In any case, debating or correcting by using the hammer on someone's head will provide you with results contrary to what you want, every single time. Use the civil route and the topic will get somewhere - or at least it will be interesting to participate in - more participants = more interesting discussion, everyone wins, etc. Hostility and bullshit: argumentum ad nauseam over and over. There can't be a winner, because eventually reality decides who's right, and if victory is a goal then everyone ends up a loser - they lost their time.

You suck, your religion sucks, your favorite band sucks, your job sucks, your mom swallows.

Akina: bitch I will stab you in the face

Minds are changed through debate and pressure all the time. People don't admit it but it happens. People rarely AGREE to change how they think or even realize that they have undergone a change. That is why viewpoints have and continue to evolve.

Earthquakes are big and noisy, but they can move continents, even though we aren't worried that Japan will drift away from Korea.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Japan has moved 15 feet towards america in that earthquake.


IN YOUR FACE

Yeah, but it'll take time and using the hammer would get an opposite result in most cases. (mostly because no one will listen - it'll drive them away from yours)

What I'm saying is that it's fine if people keep their viewpoints, through and after a debate, but the point of said debate is to move them closer together. Even if they're different, two parties can reach a common understanding if they are willing to listen, correct themselves, etc, etc. There's often more than one valid opinion on most subjects. (e.g. religion, it's definitely a bad thing when taken to extremes, but no one can discredit the additions to culture that it brought)

(edit) One (extreme) alternative is anyone agreeing with anyone whenever something is said. Is that close to realistic? I.e. in your case, if you're skeptical of other opinions, then you better hope that others will be skeptical of yours. If they aren't, you might be in a community full of stupid.



lol'd



You're probably 100% right on all counts sir.

Tolerance is the virtue of he who is without convictions.

Splitting the difference is a copout for being unwilling to seek truth.

The goal of a debate is to seek truth, not to have one's self-complacency coddled.

The truth is usually NOT in between.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

If it's scientific, the truth won't be inbetween or it will be unknown. But another situation is that there may be competing theories, and those two words put together mean that it's not certain which one is correct. (for a quick example, Standard model of particle physics vs SUSY, also particles vs strings -- not to be confused with copenhagen-interpreted quantum theory vs mind/body problem (the observer causes collapse argument), since the latter is philosophical - and to expand on that, someone can explain (or ponder) a view without believing in any part of it - example: the athene ToE thread, which attracted me flaming for some reason (you'll be glad to know that I toasted it + their method of releasing before calculating in a direct email to Chiren & Reese - and they actually thanked me for it)). Either way debate will never decide which is right, experiments will. For my example, that's what the LHC was built for, in part.

Also, for my example, it is beneficial to have well developped theories. Standard model and SUSY are both that way, and as a result it will be easier to spot predictions by either of the theories. The ingredients for that is multiple sides with multiple ideas who developped said ideas despite the possibility of being wrong, and while disregarding this pesky "common sense" (that's gone from physics). Ever seen a SM vs SUSY flamewar? To further expand I could go into how scientists always invent a multitude of explanations and verify them one by one against the observations or experimental results to see which describes them best.

Counter-example: Young-earth theory vs big bang. The latter wins in predictions, observations and experiments, and even accounting for all that, I couldn't say that the BBT, as-is, is 100% "set in stone", since it depends on mathematical models and there are actually a few observations that have been made (basically statistically irrelevant compared to the succesful ones, but they're there! (see: NGC 7603 for a prime example, but disregard the crackpots and conspiracy shit)) that could mean that the method of measuring distance and velocity of cosmic objects needs refining (and of course, predicting 13.75 billion years of cosmic history is a bit of a challenge). But the former is absolutely obsolete since it has nothing that the latter has other than a millenia-old book. But in this case, the BBT would be expanded by a better theory, much like Newtonian gravity (also a mathematical model) was expanded by relativity (which is not perfect either).

Counter-counter-example: Sex theory vs Stork theory. (okay that was a joke)

If it's religious, everyone has their own opinion. Holding your own while respecting others is not a copout, since holding your own while belittling others is pointless. One can even be an anti-theist (which most describes me I think) while respecting that others follow a religion, while belittling the religious organization and/or their action.

I think that it's essential for civil discussion. For example, I have an uncle who's a Jehova's Witness. Now, you can instantly see the contrast in beliefs and opinions, yet we get along fine (and he's the relative I'm closest to) and we actually get into discussions about the above and his beliefs.

A place to observe cocksure idiots who insult anyone that disagrees with them on religion is the comments section of youtube on pretty much any video you can think of.

Things are rarely black-and-white that you can pick a side and be sure that you're right, using the copout argument honestly makes it look like you're closed to any counter-opinion, when in practice one should be open and consider any contrasting ones. And I hate to break it to you but there's more than one valid opinion on almost anything non-scientifically established.

(e.g, "psychiatry is a sham" is nothing new, and it's wrong - some discoveries/disorders/etc could very well be wrong, but the practice itself is not, regardless of whatever happened 60+ years ago. It's also a sweeping generalization but whatever. The study of behaviour and cognition (psychology) is also a worthy pursuit, how can one think that it's not? I can expand on this again by using physics - psychology and sociology study the most complex systems that we know (humans and their mind, societies, groups within, etc), while physics studies the fundamentals, that is, the least complex systems of nature. Which do you think will be most error-prone?)

Being unwilling to consider another point of view is a defense mechanism that's usually the result of a lack of understanding of one's own opinion let alone the subject at hand.

In my professional experience the best solution is often something that had yet to be considered because no one group had all the information necessary.

There is only one reality. I am interested in figuring out what that reality is.

I am secure in my intelligence and don't feel compelled to aggrandize it by going through the motions of academic debate.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

The problem with such "debates" on forums is that they perpetually rehash the same arguments so no progress is made and participants don't have any skin in the game nor are they accountable for their statements.

Perhaps if at the beginning of the discussion all arguments and counter arguments were listed at the top and those points could not be rehashed only refined with new information or improved logic then maybe there would be some progress, but even then it seems unlikely because the method of communication does not lend itself to accountability.

In any event I'm sure Aestu is right that some people's positions are changed, assuming they're open-minded, but not many.

Forums are a place to trollolol and talk about bewbs and pwnin noobs.

Spread of Christianity
Civil Rights movement
Sexual revolution
Culture Wars

People don't get up and yell "OK YOU CONVINCED ME"

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Found Fathers: All men are created equal (except of course the negros and the women and those damn dirty french)
Now: Women can vote, racial equality is demonstrably better and well we're working on liking the French.

Obviously opinions change, albeit slowly because there are more close-minded people than open-minded.

Well that was quick.

Druid: Meowth
« Steam »« Xfire »
Glorious Death Metal Music

Everyone scientifically-minded is interested in accomplishing that goal. Everyone scientifically-minded is also aware of the uncertainty of a lot of current theories that form the basis of our understanding of reality.

If the standard model of particle physics was shown to be wrong tomorrow (a simple case of showing that the predicted higgs boson does not exist, since it's the source of mass in the particles we know of in the theory), there would probably be more scientists, at least for a little while, fighting for it's survival or something of the sort (by attempting to show that the experiment was done wrong or something, assuming for this fictious example that it was done correctly) than scientists looking for new physics. It wouldn't even necessarily indicate stupidity - some would be skeptics, some are just humans and would attempt to save something familiar to them, and some would be just plain misguided or stupid. (keep in mind that it took years for the steady state universe theories to go away)

Again, far from black-and-white.

The second sentence sounds like "I am secure in my intelligence and never felt the need to challenge it (academically or otherwise? heh.)", something that you recently openly protested. An academic has his intelligence challenged every damn day - that's actually not part of the job, it is the job. Your derision of academics and academia using that argument is completely unwarranted. (not to mention almost ridiculously dead wrong, even if we don't account the fact that a person of any level of intelligence faces huge challenges during grad school for most if not all sciences, and probably most subjects too - though I wouldn't know.)

I also agree with a lack of "intellectualchallengelol" (what I referred to as cockfights) on forums, which I had protested in the Japan thread (if you see this as a challenge and not a discussion then I don't know what to say). Y'know, that's some serious contradiction right there.

Not to mention the assumption that I'm actually "agrandizing it" for inflation purposes or whatever. Unless you read minds, you can't know that and spreading it in any thread where such things are discussed shows a taste for assuming reality.

Outlook not so good in getting my point across. Heh.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.