Tweet
Originally posted by Mike Brewer
In the language of debate, that's what prima faciae means. If you make an argument, then you must also make sure that your argument addresses the idea or statement that's in dispute. You can't just go off and make claims and then not support them. It's called "burden of proof." When you make a point and meet your burden of proof, we can either accept it or refute it, at which point we have to meet what's called the "burden of rejoinder."
I point this out not to pick a fight or inject anything scholarly into a good old fashioned playground fight, but because it is irritating in the extreme to try and have a discussion when one side or the other is unwilling to engage in discussion or debate over direct questions. When one side makes statements and provides no evidence to back up claims, then there's no discussion - it's just lecturing.
I think being thin skinned and defensive when questioned is a sign of very weak foundations. It's a sign that beliefs have not been tested, and a fear on the part of the believer that if they are tested, they won't hold. Frankly, it's one of the reasons I like to welcome debate, and why I'm often more than willing to put my personal opinions and beliefs in the public view. If they're rigorously criticized and they pass the litmus test, then I can have that much more faith in my conclusions. If they don't pass muster, then I've learned something. Either way, it's a win for me. When you lack that confidence, or when you lack the will to put your arguments into the fire, you're practicing faith, not reason. You're accepting superstition instead of experimentation. Worst of all, you're denying yourself the opportunity to explore your own views.
For example, for jubaji to quip about something without offering up any substantive argument might point out a flaw in logic, a failure to meet the burden of proof, or some such thing - but it doesn't further the discussion. it doesn't teach anyone anything, and it povides no new information.
Likewise, for KOTF to make a statement such as "Shi is the top fighting monk of the Shaolin Temple and is proven in armed and unarmed combat" requires some level of qualification. Many of us didn't know that the Shaolin monks competed, for example. Most of us realize that they are not out on modern-day battlefields using their skills to fight in wars, so it leaves a very legitimate place to ask - how is he "proven?" Has he had to kill people in battle? Or are the Shaolin arts something that have become sporterized, allowing him to prove himself in other ways? If that's the case, then we have to go all the way back to how sportified combat isn't a valid method of assessment for the real deal.
As for statements about being too lazy to research? That's just a patently absurd statement. In a discussion like this, sources are important. There are criteria that need to be met in order for both sides to reach any kind of agreement. By asking questions, someone like me is able to determine what sources YOU see as credible. That allows me to gear my research to a common mindset and context, and it helps make sure we're talking about the same things. It actually takes a lot of effort to do this, by the way, as any schmuck can Google something and come up with 87 million wrong or irrelevant answers to just about anything. Narrowing the focus and trying to make sure we're speaking the smae language is the opposite of lazy - it is me going to extra effort to insure my points are relevant from your point of view.
My thought on this is very, very simple. If it's worth discussing it, then let's all drop the bullshit defensiveness and discuss it. Let's be confident and humble enough to accept that people can question what we believe without it being a personal attack on us as people. Let's accept that people can listen to what we have to say, no matter how much we believe it, and still disagree. Most of all, Jesus Christ, can we just have a fucking discussion without it turning into a fight over who's dumber? I'd donate a kidney if we could figure out a way to all just grow up a little and risk being wrong from time to time in the interests of furthering the collective knowledge pool here.
I point this out not to pick a fight or inject anything scholarly into a good old fashioned playground fight, but because it is irritating in the extreme to try and have a discussion when one side or the other is unwilling to engage in discussion or debate over direct questions. When one side makes statements and provides no evidence to back up claims, then there's no discussion - it's just lecturing.
I think being thin skinned and defensive when questioned is a sign of very weak foundations. It's a sign that beliefs have not been tested, and a fear on the part of the believer that if they are tested, they won't hold. Frankly, it's one of the reasons I like to welcome debate, and why I'm often more than willing to put my personal opinions and beliefs in the public view. If they're rigorously criticized and they pass the litmus test, then I can have that much more faith in my conclusions. If they don't pass muster, then I've learned something. Either way, it's a win for me. When you lack that confidence, or when you lack the will to put your arguments into the fire, you're practicing faith, not reason. You're accepting superstition instead of experimentation. Worst of all, you're denying yourself the opportunity to explore your own views.
For example, for jubaji to quip about something without offering up any substantive argument might point out a flaw in logic, a failure to meet the burden of proof, or some such thing - but it doesn't further the discussion. it doesn't teach anyone anything, and it povides no new information.
Likewise, for KOTF to make a statement such as "Shi is the top fighting monk of the Shaolin Temple and is proven in armed and unarmed combat" requires some level of qualification. Many of us didn't know that the Shaolin monks competed, for example. Most of us realize that they are not out on modern-day battlefields using their skills to fight in wars, so it leaves a very legitimate place to ask - how is he "proven?" Has he had to kill people in battle? Or are the Shaolin arts something that have become sporterized, allowing him to prove himself in other ways? If that's the case, then we have to go all the way back to how sportified combat isn't a valid method of assessment for the real deal.
As for statements about being too lazy to research? That's just a patently absurd statement. In a discussion like this, sources are important. There are criteria that need to be met in order for both sides to reach any kind of agreement. By asking questions, someone like me is able to determine what sources YOU see as credible. That allows me to gear my research to a common mindset and context, and it helps make sure we're talking about the same things. It actually takes a lot of effort to do this, by the way, as any schmuck can Google something and come up with 87 million wrong or irrelevant answers to just about anything. Narrowing the focus and trying to make sure we're speaking the smae language is the opposite of lazy - it is me going to extra effort to insure my points are relevant from your point of view.
My thought on this is very, very simple. If it's worth discussing it, then let's all drop the bullshit defensiveness and discuss it. Let's be confident and humble enough to accept that people can question what we believe without it being a personal attack on us as people. Let's accept that people can listen to what we have to say, no matter how much we believe it, and still disagree. Most of all, Jesus Christ, can we just have a fucking discussion without it turning into a fight over who's dumber? I'd donate a kidney if we could figure out a way to all just grow up a little and risk being wrong from time to time in the interests of furthering the collective knowledge pool here.
Comment