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 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 96

  1. #31
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    You're analyzing my motivations for doing something which is looking at me 'the source' and trying to figure out what you think I'm doing rather than answering the question.

    I think it was a pretty simple question, and I had no intent of switching anything or refuting any logic with it. I just was looking for a straight answer out of curiosity. you read something into it which was not there.
    Why would you ask the question if you didn't have a motivator?
    I guess my natural reaction to your advances is to assume you want to prove my thought inconsistent. (You don't have to worry, it is...lol)
    I didn't answer the question because you knew which answer you'd get back.
    Unless you think I like losing...

  2. #32
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xisnotx View Post
    Why would you ask the question if you didn't have a motivator?
    I guess my natural reaction to your advances is to assume you want to prove my thought inconsistent. (You don't have to worry, it is...lol)
    I didn't answer the question because you knew which answer you'd get back.
    Unless you think I like losing...
    Well I did have a motivator.
    And I knew with relative certainty what your answer would be.

    I still wasn't interested in proving you wrong though, or anything like that. I really just wanted your answer, or more importantly see in what way you would answer it.

    I think the exchange was very interesting and said a lot about how things work in practice.

  3. #33
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    Well I did have a motivator.
    And I knew with relative certainty what your answer would be.

    I still wasn't interested in proving you wrong though, or anything like that. I really just wanted your answer, or more importantly see in what way you would answer it.

    I think the exchange was very interesting and said a lot about how things work in practice.
    So, I was your experiment..

  4. #34
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    I think both are equally important because you can build a logical argument on baseless statements. It's how Ti fails - the house of cards is built on a poor foundation. Or the person's opinions (like Ayn Rand's, for example, a TJ, not a TP, to give equal criticism to how Te can fail) are build on some reactionary personal bias.

    Or sometimes I take a common person's arguments less seriously because they have no life experience, depending on the subject. Like if you've been exceedingly wealthy your entire life, you don't know the life experience of the poor, unless you've worked closely with them. Walking by homeless poeple on your way to the movies doesn't count.

  5. #35
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,038

    Default

    I wasn't aware they were an incompatible dichotomy. Isn't that the nature of discretion?
    For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

  6. #36
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xisnotx View Post
    So, I was your experiment..
    Hah don't feel bad about that.

    Some times it's easier for me to see things in spontaneous action as they happen without wording about them since things are often lost in connotation, yet practice often makes the difference.

    Edit: and my neologism for today is 'wording', as a verb. I like it. It's my new word. I'll stop wording about it now.

  7. #37
    Certified Sausage Smoker Elfboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLI None
    Posts
    9,635

    Default

    the argument. if it makes sense it make sense. I've always been a very inductive thinker. I come up with the ideas and then use sources to verify, tweak or decide to toss out my ideas, but the ideas always start with my own understanding. I don't have the world figured out, but I am VERY confident in my ability to quickly adjust course and understand new information quickly. there are areas where this is impossible (as I'm starting to realize with love, relations and emotional experiences in general) but in terms of comprehending something like how the world works, it is possible to understand a lot about it without much experience as long as you take the time to at least check your ideas against some sort of credible external facts just to make sure you aren't crazy and (my preferred method is to talk to people who know what they're talking about, listen to their explanations, ask questions and bounce ideas off them to see what they think)

    PS: @Marmotini
    any doubts I had about you being an SFP are officially washed away. the difference between our posts is a clear illustration of Se vs Ne.
    ENFP: We put the Fi in Fire
    ENFP
    5w4>1w9>2w1 Sx/Sp
    SEE-Fi
    Papa Bear
    Motivation: Dark Worker
    Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
    Chibi Seme
    MTG Color: black/red
    Male Archtype: King/Lover
    Sunburst!
    "You are a gay version of Gambit" Speed Gavroche
    "I wish that I could be affected by any hate, but I can't, cuz I just get affected by the bank" Chamillionaire

  8. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireShield98 View Post
    A stupid person can come up with a brilliant idea. A brilliant person can come up with a stupid idea. It's best to judge for yourself with your own mind whether the argument makes sense or not, regardless of where it comes from.
    In some senses I totally agree with you but I just know that sources which are consistently correct are usually more reliable because sometimes the best predictors of future results are past results.

  9. #39
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    @Elfboy

    Ah yes, source checking. Citing credible information. Boon and bane, that is.

    Argument structure is independent but without vetting sources, it is useless. Yet, eventually you have to take somebody's word for it because sources often come in a chain where we end up checking many levels of sources.

    Like if someone cites their data as coming from Bob Bobingston' Bobber experiment in 1983, you've got nothing new unless you also check Bob Bobingston's experiment, so you go check that and see that Bob Bobingston cites 10 other sources which all hinge around his experiment, at which point you have a mess on your hands because if all 10 of his sources have 10 of their own sources you end up with a geometric progression which is always 'fun'.

    Edit: a good example is luminiferous aether. If you think about it, the idea made a lot of sense when it was thought up.

    Sound propagates through a medium and it seemed logical that light should also propagate through a medium, yet they couldn't figure out why this medium didn't seem to be tangible, especially through outer space. So they came up with luminiferous aether. Seems reasonable! Except, when scientists set up experiments to verify it, they failed. Failed over and over and over every time.

    People liked the luminiferous aether. Even Einstein who pretty much proved that it doesn't work that way wasn't ready to just throw it out immediately, he talked with Maxwell and Lorentz about it for a while before it became clear that luminiferous aether is irrelevant in general relativity.

  10. #40
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Ethos, pathos, and logos, people. The tripartite principles of argumentation.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

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