• 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

xisnotx

Permabanned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
2,144
source? why would anyone care about source?
Only perhaps if I'm too lazy to care about it, I'll just be like "yeah, it seems like he knows what he's talking about, but I don't, so that doesn't mean much".

Definitely the structure of the argument.

More than anything, though, the motivation behind the argument. If the motivation is invalid to begin with, then the argument can be good and I still won't give it too much credit.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
source? why would anyone care about source?
Only perhaps if I'm too lazy to care about it, I'll just be like "yeah, it seems like he knows what he's talking about, but I don't, so that doesn't mean much".

Definitely the structure of the argument.

More than anything, though, the motivation behind the argument. If the motivation is invalid to begin with, then the argument can be good and I still won't give it too much credit.

Who would you want to be your lawyer if you somehow get into trouble - one who knows what they are doing and wins all the time, or one who always loses? Which one do you think is going to make the better argument for you?
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
More than anything, though, the motivation behind the argument. If the motivation is invalid to begin with, then the argument can be good and I still won't give it too much credit.

Isn't this part of what is meant by "source?"

I agree with [MENTION=10757]Nicodemus[/MENTION] that outside of the realms of mathematics and logic, where form is a guarantor of truth, ethos becomes a much more important factor in argumentation.
 

xisnotx

Permabanned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
2,144
Who would you want to be your lawyer if you somehow get into trouble - one who knows what they are doing and wins all the time, or one who always loses? Which one do you think is going to make the better argument for you?

you're begging the question.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
you're begging the question.

I am? Explain how.

I'm asking a question. I never made an argument there to beg the question in.

It's not an argument or rhetorical question. I'm actually asking you that question because I'd like to know.
 

dala

New member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
214
MBTI Type
intp
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.

Not at all. I am as guilty of anyone else of judging the source over the idea. All I'm saying is that it is a poor practice, because good ideas can be overlooked and bad ones accepted when, if looked at objectively, this might not happen.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
Not at all. I am as guilty of anyone else of judging the source over the idea. All I'm saying is that it is a poor practice, because good ideas can be overlooked and bad ones accepted when, if looked at objectively, this might not happen.

Well I agree it should be avoided when possible which is why in my first post, I said that the source isn't pertinent in a perfect world. If everyone were honest and spoke of what they know, then source would be irrelevant.

Source should be irrelevant in practice. In reality though it often does matter to us, in spite of how much it "shouldn't".

Edit: and on that note, I voted that the argument is more important than the source. In a world where all sources were equal I'd pick the argument as paramount, but we don't actually have that world so I see my choice as the more accurate one.
 

xisnotx

Permabanned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
2,144
Isn't this part of what is meant by "source?"

I agree with [MENTION=10757]Nicodemus[/MENTION] that outside of the realms of mathematics and logic, where form is a guarantor of truth, ethos becomes a much more important factor in argumentation.

I guess you could say so. From the op I got the sense that "source" meant more the "person". If by "source" it's meant "the motivation"...then yeah. It's ambiguous.

Just to clear my position...paramount is the reason behind the argument..(not "logic reason") rather, reason as to why it's worthy of discussion. Are you interested in proving a point? Proving yourself right? Demonstrating your skills in debate? Then I have no want to talk to you.

Or you actually interested in improving or promoting values/situations that you think are ideal? Are you more interested in the results? Then we can talk. From there, that'll lead to an evaluation of ideals and a plan of action. Right/wrong, logical/illogical doesn't come into it as much. It's not even an argument anymore, more a plan with points jockeying for priority.

Lastly, the actual person or the institution he represents...Americanists, Religionists, Technologists, Realists, Westernists, Africanists...I have very little patience for.
 

xisnotx

Permabanned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
2,144
I am? Explain how.

I'm asking a question. I never made an argument there to beg the question in.

It's not an argument or rhetorical question. I'm actually asking you that question because I'd like to know.

You're giving me a question with an obvious answer as if that'll prove the illogicalness of my previous answer.
You're basically switching my reasoning from one context to another, and proving it false in the other context, and then concluding it's false in the first.

To answer your question. The lawyer that wins.
But it has nothing to do with what I was saying.

If he knows what he's talking about, and I don't, then he gets credit.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
You're giving me a question with an obvious answer as if that'll prove the illogicalness of my previous answer.
You're basically switching my reasoning from one context to another, and proving it false in the other context, and then concluding it's false in the first.

To answer your question. The lawyer that wins.
But it has nothing to do with what I was saying.

If he knows what he's talking about, and I don't, then he gets credit.

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.
 

xisnotx

Permabanned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
2,144
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...
 

sprinkles

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

xisnotx

Permabanned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
2,144
Well I did have a motivator. :D
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..:dry:
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
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.
 

UniqueMixture

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
3,004
MBTI Type
estj
Enneagram
378
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I wasn't aware they were an incompatible dichotomy. Isn't that the nature of discretion?
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
So, I was your experiment..:dry:

Hah don't feel bad about that. :D

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.
 

Elfboy

Certified Sausage Smoker
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
9,625
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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: [MENTION=6877]Marmotini[/MENTION]
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.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
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.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
[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'.

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.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
Ethos, pathos, and logos, people. The tripartite principles of argumentation.
 
Top