User Tag List

View Poll Results: Is the source or the argument more important to discerning the truth?

Voters
36. You may not vote on this poll
  • The source is paramount.

    1 2.78%
  • The source is a bit more important than the argument.

    2 5.56%
  • The source and the argument are equally important.

    10 27.78%
  • The argument is more important than the source.

    14 38.89%
  • The argument is paramount.

    9 25.00%
First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 96

  1. #11
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dala View Post
    It seems like bad practice to deliberately introduce my own bias into the equation in order to stave off the hypothetical bias of someone else.
    You have to. Otherwise you can never even approach an argument on a subject that you don't have professional knowledge of. And if you do have such knowledge, then there's no need to approach someone else's argument when you know plenty enough to make your own conclusions and have them be correct.

    On that note there have been hoaxes which slipped past peer review in scientific communities just because the language used looked professional and the reviewers took the writers word for too many things because they didn't have the time or knowledge to verify all of it.

  2. #12
    right on the left wing Philosorapteuse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    218

    Default

    The argument comes first. If it isn't logically valid, or the assumptions it's based on are unsound, then it's already dead in the water regardless of who proposed it.

    If it proves valid and/or sound, then I look at its provenance. Bias in the reporting of the facts, and silent underlying assumptions, can both poison an argument that looks OK on the surface. But I don't generally bother with digging down if the argument's already dead.
    "A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." --William James

    I'd be a card-carrying sensotard, but I can't find the goddamn card.

  3. #13
    right on the left wing Philosorapteuse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    You have to. Otherwise you can never even approach an argument on a subject that you don't have professional knowledge of. And if you do have such knowledge, then there's no need to approach someone else's argument when you know plenty enough to make your own conclusions and have them be correct.
    Welcome to Planet Obsessive INTP. This is basically what we tend to avoid doing, in the interests of detachment. It makes for cleaner arguments and greater insight. But not for drawing conclusions, agreed.
    "A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." --William James

    I'd be a card-carrying sensotard, but I can't find the goddamn card.

  4. #14
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Philosorapteuse View Post
    Welcome to Planet Obsessive INTP. This is basically what we tend to avoid doing, in the interests of detachment. It makes for cleaner arguments and greater insight. But not for drawing conclusions, agreed.
    Yeah. Problem is that any argument can be sound on its surface with presumed truths.

    Such as, if I were to argue that ducks which lay golden eggs would impact the value of gold, I'd probably be right - assuming that there actually are ducks that lay golden eggs.

    It's very easy to presume the 'duck' in someone else's argument if you don't have experience, which makes the argument appear to be truthful but in actuality it may not be, because of something in the premise is missed that doesn't actually apply to the real world.

  5. #15
    right on the left wing Philosorapteuse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    Yeah. Problem is that any argument can be sound on its surface with presumed truths.

    Such as, if I were to argue that ducks which lay golden eggs would impact the value of gold, I'd probably be right - assuming that there actually are ducks that lay golden eggs.

    It's very easy to presume the 'duck' in someone else's argument if you don't have experience, which makes the argument appear to be truthful but in actuality it may not be, because of something in the premise is missed that doesn't actually apply to the real world.
    Well yes, obviously soundness has to be vetted as well as validity. I don't view detachment as detracting from ability to vet soundness, however, rather as not introducing hidden assumptions. If anything this is likely to help, as it reduces the number of silent assumptions in the argument that need to be dug out.
    "A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." --William James

    I'd be a card-carrying sensotard, but I can't find the goddamn card.

  6. #16
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    The term "source" is rather ambiguous. If, by source, the OP means an "authority", then I tend to check the consistency of the argument and weigh it against what I already know. I hear everything out until I make a conclusion; I suppose it helps to have a solid understanding of the simpler things, since errors in logic happen when one takes a thin assumption for granted. However, there are times when I accept comprehensiveness where strict logic would stand simply because comprehensiveness merges opposing assumptions. Contrasting viewpoints give us new understanding if we accept them and shift paradigms. It's possible to maintain a critical, yet open mind toward authority, but for practicality's sake, I tend to accept what an authority has to say if their statements are thorough. One can frequently tell when an idea has already been questioned - this tends to be what separates rhetoric and ideology from bone dry argument and truth value.

    If, by source, the OP refers to some sort of evidence that's taken into account by self-evident inductive reasoning processes and formulated into a statement, and further into an argument, then the source is of equal value.

  7. #17
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    I dont understand the question. In my head they are so many voices speaking to me, the claim if they are reliable sources is the last one I possibly could have
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  8. #18
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    I guess the devil can quote the bible for his own purposes.
    We honestly look at our inner-demons to deny him the ends of his purposes.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    You have to. Otherwise you can never even approach an argument on a subject that you don't have professional knowledge of. And if you do have such knowledge, then there's no need to approach someone else's argument when you know plenty enough to make your own conclusions and have them be correct.

    On that note there have been hoaxes which slipped past peer review in scientific communities just because the language used looked professional and the reviewers took the writers word for too many things because they didn't have the time or knowledge to verify all of it.
    I find it better to look at all arguments with a reasonable amount of scrutiny, rather than 'trusting' some sources and being 'skeptical' of others. People make mistakes of reasoning and facts all the time, including myself, and just because I disagree/dislike someone else's politics/think they're nuts doesn't mean they're wrong.

  10. #20
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dala View Post
    I find it better to look at all arguments with a reasonable amount of scrutiny, rather than 'trusting' some sources and being 'skeptical' of others. People make mistakes of reasoning and facts all the time, including myself, and just because I disagree/dislike someone else's politics/think they're nuts doesn't mean they're wrong.
    What's a reasonable amount of scrutiny? And who said that anyone was wrong?

    Are you saying for example that you'd trust a company which has been in trouble many times for fraud and faulty products when they say 'this new product is 100% safe this time! we guarantee it!'

    Are you telling me that you aren't even a LITTLE more likely to check someone more thoroughly if they have a track record of lying, manipulating, being malicious, inventing data and taking things out of context as opposed to a source you already trust? If you are telling me that, I don't believe you.

Similar Threads

  1. [ISTJ] Could the ISTJ be considered a Rational personality?
    By Delta223 in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 03-05-2013, 06:27 PM
  2. The Argument Of Rain
    By Liason in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 06-02-2010, 09:07 PM
  3. Australia is considering the approval of female genital mutilation
    By Lex Talionis in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 05-30-2010, 08:30 PM
  4. 'The Bible is no longer considered part of the conversation'
    By Sniffles in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 172
    Last Post: 04-17-2009, 08:36 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO