• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Consider the source, or consider the argument?

Is the source or the argument more important to discerning the truth?


  • Total voters
    32

Elfboy

Certified Sausage Smoker
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
9,625
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
[MENTION=5684]Elfboy[/MENTION]
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'.

I think the difference between me and a lot of people is that being right for me is more of a process. my goal is to do what makes sense to me, continually gather new information (either from experience, consulting experts or a little bit of research), adjust my perspective and keep doing/thinking what is the best with the information I have at the time. my ENTJ is very different from me in this regard in that he likes to know ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING before he starts and has a much stronger preference for deduction than induction.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
If you want to be a politician, otherwise not so much.

If you want to have a conclusion, otherwise not so much.

If we don't want conclusions, why argue? Social contact? I can think of better ways to make social contact.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
If you want to be a politician, otherwise not so much.

Wrong. They form a part of any argument that is not mathematical. To think otherwise is to leave one's self open to deception.
 

Within

Permabanned
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
1,369
If you want to have a conclusion, otherwise not so much.
Nop you see. Cult leaders as many politicians, tend to skim on their logos. Well, they don't, until they get an awkward question while on the stand. Before such an event they are more than happy to use logos as well. The dirty whore of an issue in this subject is that the mob don't really care that much about the facts. One have to admire and weep over how eloquent our hierarchy is established. The ones that sound convincing and bow down to pat babies on their head tend to get the vote.

CHANGE MAVERICK CHANGE MAVERICK CHANGE MAVERICK

If we don't want conclusions, why argue? Social contact? I can think of better ways to make social contact.
Yeah, you misunderstood everything that I previously stated. Impressive.

Wrong. They form a part of any argument that is not mathematical. To think otherwise is to leave one's self open to deception.
I'm curious to what made you jump at that so quickly. You see, in this spectrum there are no sides. You do have your imaginative castle pretty much locked down with the motion of your hand, grtz.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
I'm curious to what made you jump at that so quickly. You see, in this spectrum there are no sides. You do have your imaginative castle pretty much locked down with the motion of your hand, grtz.

You on sum drugs, girl?
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
Nop you see. Cult leaders as many politicians, tend to skim on their logos. Well, they don't, until they get an awkward question while on the stand. Before such an event they are more than happy to use logos as well. The dirty whore of an issue in this subject is that the mob don't really care that much about the facts. One have to admire and weep over how eloquent our hierarchy is established. The ones that sound convincing and bow down to pat babies on their head tend to get the vote.
Yes this is true. It still means that all three are important, even if only to know when to disregard certain ones.

When you're 'othering' in this way you are looking at the sources. If it is true that source is irrelevant (and I argue that it isn't in practice) then you always have to evaluate every argument that comes out of them regardless of their behaviors and past history. If only logos matters then you will always evaluate the logos and disregard the other two. If you evaluate the other two negatively, then you are still evaluating them.

Yeah, you misunderstood everything that I previously stated. Impressive.
I understood quite well what you said. I just didn't quite agree with it.
 

Fluffywolf

Nips away your dignity
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,581
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
For me the argument is paramount.

It is for that same reason I consider many of the wisdoms written about by the many religions on this planet and add them as my own. Without sharing belief in the religion.
 

Within

Permabanned
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
1,369
If only logos matters then you will always evaluate the logos and disregard the other two. If you evaluate the other two negatively, then you are still evaluating them.
Yes of course, but that was not what I was evaluating. I just find it sad that the people in power have to assume the role of the pop media in order to act as such.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
Yes of course, but that was not what I was evaluating. I just find it sad that the people in power have to assume the role of the pop media in order to act as such.

Yeah, they do that because it works. Because unfortunately, most people simply cannot switch off emotional response entirely - in fact it's often considered weird or detrimental if one can do that. The Spock is well loved in theory, but not connected with in practice.

The same goes with charisma. Most people can't switch off innate attractions which go beyond higher levels of reasoning.
 

rhinosaur

Just a statistic
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
1,464
MBTI Type
INTP
The content is most important, but the source can sometimes be relevant to context or to understand the nature of the argument.

Some historic figure who has thought deeply enough about a topic to have generated the basis for an argument frequently has more ideas about it that are relevant. If they later reverse their opinion, for example, it is useful to know why they've changed their mind.
 

Within

Permabanned
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
1,369
Most people can't switch off innate attractions which go beyond higher levels of reasoning.
That's a good example of the sinking boat we're all sitting in.

As long as the orchestra plays on the borderline panicking people will remain as that, borderline panicking.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
That's a good example of the sinking boat we're all sitting in.

As long as the orchestra plays on the borderline panicking people will remain as that, borderline panicking.

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.
 

Within

Permabanned
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
1,369
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.

Exactly, It's a wonderful thought, turn that wooden wheel a couple of clicks forward. Having all cards on the table before an election. Now that's democracy in the true sense of the word.

It's perfect because the corruption of which I speak is the collective manifestation our race. Pluck away a couple of key ingredients in the wheel of what makes us humans tick and we're bound for progress.
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
For me the argument is paramount.

It is for that same reason I consider many of the wisdoms written about by the many religions on this planet and add them as my own. Without sharing belief in the religion.

Same.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
:)
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.

On the other hand, if you're ever to come to a conclusion, you have to draw the line somewhere, give the unknown the benefit of the doubt, and determine what you're willing to risk in dismissing a statement as false or accepting it as true.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
:)

On the other hand, if you're ever to come to a conclusion, you have to draw the line somewhere, give the unknown the benefit of the doubt, and determine what you're willing to risk in dismissing a statement as false or accepting it as true.

Yup, it's a bit of a dilemma.

If we're just going to accept a conclusion then there's really no need to look at the argument because at best it ends up being a semantic formality. It's rather trivial to make a good argument - argument being a linguistic structure of propositions. What really matters for the truth of the conclusion is the truth of the propositions, and less so the way they mesh together, because anyone who is clever can put them together.

So when you give the unknown the benefit of the doubt, you give the actual tough part of the argument - the truth of the propositions - the benefit of the doubt, and the argument itself is almost just a formality.
 
Top