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 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 96

  1. #61
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    Yeah. I wonder what would happen if we stripped out ethos and pathos from selecting political candidates. You wouldn't get to look at their credibility, you wouldn't even get to hear their voice or see their face. All you would get are facts that are entirely consistent and true. First of all I think very few people would run in that case. Secondly, I wouldn't be surprised if we vote for someone and it turns out that they are a genius teenager, or a robot, or something else that would never be elected if we weren't only going by logos.
    If the ethos and pathos are insignificant in the voting process, then there's no point in stripping them out. It's the voters' responsibility to research candidates beyond their personas and beyond their poorly constructed logos typically presented to the public. If the voter doesn't recognize that candidates are typically evaluated more for what they say and less for what words they act upon, then it's a symptom of the times and the people, not the candidate. People are capable of thinking for themselves if they choose to prioritize thinking.

  2. #62
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    If the ethos and pathos are insignificant in the voting process, then there's no point in stripping them out. It's the voters' responsibility to research candidates beyond their personas and beyond their poorly constructed logos typically presented to the public. If the voter doesn't recognize that candidates are typically evaluated more for what they say and less for what words they act upon, then it's a symptom of the times and the people, not the candidate. People are capable of thinking for themselves if they choose to prioritize thinking.
    I agree and kind of said as much in another post.

    The reason I said it this way though is that ethos and pathos are largely involuntary things that are there and evaluated whether we want them to be or not, some times we don't even know we are doing it, and some people claim to not be evaluating those things right in the middle of a process where they are evaluating them.

    Thus, they do matter, they are significant, which is why I came up with the proposition of stripping them out. As I said earlier, if we evaluate it negatively, we still evaluate it.

  3. #63
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    I agree and kind of said as much in another post.

    The reason I said it this way though is that ethos and pathos are largely involuntary things that are there and evaluated whether we want them to be or not, some times we don't even know we are doing it, and some people claim to not be evaluating those things right in the middle of a process where they are evaluating them.

    Thus, they do matter, they are significant, which is why I came up with the proposition of stripping them out. As I said earlier, if we evaluate it negatively, we still evaluate it.
    Exactly. They are inevitable, so pretending that they're not a part of any argumentation (outside of formal mathematical arguments) is kind of like burying your head in the sand.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  4. #64
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    I agree and kind of said as much in another post.

    The reason I said it this way though is that ethos and pathos are largely involuntary things that are there and evaluated whether we want them to be or not, some times we don't even know we are doing it, and some people claim to not be evaluating those things right in the middle of a process where they are evaluating them.

    Thus, they do matter, they are significant, which is why I came up with the proposition of stripping them out. As I said earlier, if we evaluate it negatively, we still evaluate it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Exactly. They are inevitable, so pretending that they're not a part of any argumentation (outside of formal mathematical arguments) is kind of like burying your head in the sand.
    Agreed. Minding how something is said quite frequently reveals more about what is said.

  5. #65
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    Both are important.

    Although I voted differently because when it comes to research and etc, the more sources (especially good ones) = the more valid the argument.

    You cannot fake a good argument without sources, but you can fake sources for a bad argument (and make it "look" good.)

    Thus, "there are lies, damned lies, and there are statistics."

    It is like a research of the health benefits of smoking without knowing that the source behind the study was from a tobacco company.

  6. #66
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rail Tracer View Post
    You cannot fake a good argument without sources
    Nah I wouldnt say that. All depends on your "skills"
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  7. #67
    The High Priestess Amargith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Enfp
    Enneagram
    497 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEE Fi
    Posts
    14,657

    Default

    If Im familiar with the topic, and reasonably educated on it..the argument becomes more important. If it is a new field that I haven't had much experience with yet, then I'll check out reputation and get a 'feel' for the field of study and what the authorities in that field say, to gain a frame of reference. Once I feel Im educated enough on the topic, I might agree or disagree with those authorities. With that in mind, I tend to keep an open mind to anyone who presents me with something that I am not versed in. I won't accept their opinion..but I won't dismiss it either. Ill research further on it till I know what to do with the information.

    Lastly, one component that is *always* a factor for me is context. More specifically emotional context (I am NF after all )

    What I mean by that is..everybody is human. Everyone has their own perspective and consequently their own bias. No matter how brilliant or well versed they are in the topic at hand. So, Ill make a point to observe the person, map out their personality, and incorporate that into the view they have presented on the topic at hand. This causes me to sometimes agree with two different people who hold opposing views, because I can see how the topic overlaps and in fact fits into both their pops and is correct from either side.

    The argument is definitely secondary to this. To me, the truth is the amalgamation of all those povs together. One person sees what another doesn't and vice versa. It would be like arguing that a rainbow is primarily red or green, instead of recognizing its different shades, to me. With that in mind, I also always leave the question open-ended to account for our clearly limited human perspective on things in general.


    Edit: @Op you forgot to include an 'other, explain in thread' option in your poll.
    ★ڿڰۣ✿ℒoѵℯ✿ڿڰۣ★





    "Harm none, do as ye will”

  8. #68
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    Agreed. Minding how something is said quite frequently reveals more about what is said.
    Yes. The very nature of language is such that no use of words is ever neutral. We ignore that fact at our peril.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  9. #69
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Yes. The very nature of language is such that no use of words is ever neutral. We ignore that fact at our peril.

  10. #70
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,809

    Default

    Consider the SHOES!
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.

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