Consider the source, or consider the argument?

[Ginkgo]

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.

 

[sprinkles]

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.

 

[Orangey]

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.

 

[Ginkgo]

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.

Agreed. Minding how something is said quite frequently reveals more about what is said.

 

[Rail Tracer]

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.

 

[entropie]

You cannot fake a good argument without sources

Nah I wouldnt say that. All depends on your "skills"

 

[Amargith]

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.

 

[Orangey]

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.

 

[Ginkgo]

Yes. The very nature of language is such that no use of words is ever neutral. We ignore that fact at our peril.

 

[Cellmold]

Consider the SHOES!

 

[Society]

ofcourse the argument, an ad hominem is an instinctive fallacy but it is still a fallacy.

a person can have little to no credibility to me, and yet say something whose logic i find flawless, and vise versa, i can be extremely biased towards someone, and still find what they have to say lacking the legitimacy of rationality.

i have to say i am positively surprised by the number of NFs answering here in adhering to the argument over the source. i always thought that the stereotypical line of thought (which i'v encountered too many times) of "if you would respect me you would agree" was basically a result of projecting a bias towards the source over the argument (thus assuming if i truly loved/respected/cared for them i should be more biased towards their logic). to me that always seems like an intellectual insecurity, as in, a lack in trust in yourself and your own capacity to examine an argument rationally, thus falling back on your trust in your capacity to examine other people's reliability.

 

[CzeCze]

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.

Spoken like a true INTJ.

 

[WALMART]

Consider the argument.

Even a million monkeys banging on the keys of a million pianos...

 

[ygolo]

You know, this has gotten more interest than I would have expected. To me, pathos can be part of source or argument. In ethical arguments, emotions are important. They play the role of the senses. But you can have an emotional response to particular sources.

I believe the argument is very important. But if people are supposedly "fact-checking", it should be made as easy as possible for the person considering these checked "facts" to go through exactly the same process.

Facts don't speak for themselves. Everyone is biased, everyone is collecting facts to either test or support their own ideas. Since this collection process is being driven from an internal drive, it is difficult to know whether they are collecting facts to support a conclusion or collecting facts to test an assumption.

Consider two "fact-checking" websites (both of which I consider very biased):
http://factcheck.org/ (left leaning)
http://www.justfacts.com/index.asp (right leaning)

Both, say they exclude facts that are missing the "context" they believe is relevant, while including facts that they believe have the appropriate context.

You can tell a lot from what they exclude vs. what they include and under what topics facts are included. They are trying to spin you with the "facts" that are presented.

Note, however, that just because these sources are biased, doesn't mean that the facts themselves are "wrong." In fact, I find them both good sources of food for thought, and provide me with a deeper understanding of how misinformation works.

EDIT: Despite all the things mentioned above, I believe the argument is more important than the source of the one creating the argument. Ideally, the source would provide enough details for me to observe the very same things they did. From this, I would form my opinions. But usually, it is prohibitively expensive (either in time or money) to recreate careful studies.

 

[Rail Tracer]

Nah I wouldnt say that. All depends on your "skills"

Do you know that 87% of people believe that you don't need good sources?

But that only 39% of people follow through?

No, not really. That is how easy it is to create an argument out of thin-air without good (or any) sources.

 

[ygolo]

Do you know that 87% of people believe that you don't need good sources?

But that only 39% of people follow through?

lol. 75% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Including the ones in your posted quote and this one.

 

[Rail Tracer]

lol. 75% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

I just forgot to include my sources.

I forgot to mention the Data for Social Studies, an independent group that tracks human social behavior, did the study which was what I posted. They've given users in their studies questionnaires like this and found that those 87% of people believed they didn't need good sources and that what they say is more important than the source that it is coming from.

Likewise, while 87% of the respondents said that they didn't need good sources, only 37% of those respondents actually followed through with what they said. This shows that even though 87% of people responded that their arguments were more important than their sources, a low majority actually truly believe that.

Lol. But really, it depends on audience I suppose. What was the word again? I think it was the rhetorical situation that includes the whole lot of what we are talking here. In this situation and on this site, the sources don't need to be as abundant because the site is more relaxed. But to create an argument for an essay with none/little sources is a recipe for an F. Likewise, an argument without any sources is just yelling with no sympathy for persuading my thoughts. In more formal settings, I do try to add more sources because it adds to the credibility of what I am writing. In that same manner, people can fake the sources and some people might actually chew it up. A lot of sources with little argument doesn't help either, you are just basically throwing information at someone and telling them to read.

 

[ygolo]

I just forgot to include my sources.

I forgot to mention the Data for Social Studies, an independent group that tracks human social behavior, did the study which was what I posted. They've given users in their studies questionnaires like this and found that those 87% of people believed they didn't need good sources and that what they say is more important than the source that it is coming from.

Likewise, while 87% of the respondents said that they didn't need good sources, only 37% of those respondents actually followed through with what they said. This shows that even though 87% of people responded that their arguments were more important than their sources, a low majority actually truly believe that.

Yeah, making up sources is the next level of mis-infomation. Some take it even further and then fund whole organizations for generating "facts" that support the conclusions they want.

 

[entropie]

Do you know that 87% of people believe that you don't need good sources?

But that only 39% of people follow through?

No, not really. That is how easy it is to create an argument out of thin-air without good (or any) sources.

What would that tell me ?

P.S.: that was an evil trick

 

[jcloudz]

in honesty, i would get lost on the argument..even if the devil was the one arguing the case, thats really where the devil is at, in the details.

i think someone who has issues discerning may be more inclined to look at the person.