Debate mapper/FRO - Revision history

Woozle at 23:05, 20 December 2019

2019-12-20T23:05:47Z

Woozle at 22:20, 20 December 2019

2019-12-20T22:20:26Z

Woozle at 20:33, 18 December 2019

2019-12-18T20:33:08Z

Woozle: Created page with "=Frequently Raised Objections to the Debate Mapper= * '''Objection''': People don't use reason to arrive at their beliefs ideology: they use intuition and feeling. (Shorter: P..."

2019-12-18T20:21:54Z

Created page with "=Frequently Raised Objections to the Debate Mapper= * '''Objection''': People don't use reason to arrive at their beliefs ideology: they use intuition and feeling. (Shorter: P..."

New page

=Frequently Raised Objections to the Debate Mapper=
* '''Objection''': People don't use reason to arrive at their beliefs ideology: they use intuition and feeling. (Shorter: People don't ''think'' ideology, they ''feel'' it.)
*: '''Response''': Even if only a few people are willing to insist that their beliefs must be reasonable (i.e. must fit the best available evidence), the Mapper is still a vital tool for:
*:* weeding out disinformation
*:* overcoming one's own biases
*:* making it clear whether an opposing viewpoint has merit
*:* achieving consensus, especially on complex issues, more quickly and definitively

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 =Frequently Raised Objections to the Debate Mapper=
-* '''Objection''': People don't use reason to arrive at their beliefs ideology: they use intuition and feeling. (Shorter: People don't ''think'' ideology, they ''feel'' it.)
+* '''Objection''': People don't use reason to arrive at their beliefs/ideology: they use intuition and feeling. (Shorter: People don't ''think'' ideology, they ''feel'' it.)
 *: '''Responses''':
 *:* In the overwhelming majority of debates in which I have been involved, the basic rules of determining truth were not the issue; opposing parties seemed to feel the need to at least maintain a ''pretense'' of reasoning from evidence.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 =Frequently Raised Objections to the Debate Mapper=
 * '''Objection''': People don't use reason to arrive at their beliefs ideology: they use intuition and feeling. (Shorter: People don't ''think'' ideology, they ''feel'' it.)
 *: '''Responses''':
 *:* In the overwhelming majority of debates in which I have been involved, the basic rules of determining truth were not the issue; opposing parties seemed to feel the need to at least maintain a ''pretense'' of reasoning from evidence.
 *:** As long as both parties are playing by the basic rules of reasoning from evidence, they must eventually arrive at non-conflicting answers.
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 *:** making it clear whether an opposing viewpoint has merit
 *:** achieving consensus, especially on complex issues, more quickly and definitively
 * '''Objection''': Reasoning from evidence is just one way of knowing; there are other ways, and which one is best is [[issuepedia:that's your opinion|just a matter of opinion]].
 *: '''Response''': When the objective evidence shows that "other methods of knowing" are much more likely arrive at results that do not work, are clearly wrong, or cause more harm than good, the idea that they are somehow equally valid is questionable at best.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 =Frequently Raised Objections to the Debate Mapper=
 * '''Objection''': People don't use reason to arrive at their beliefs ideology: they use intuition and feeling. (Shorter: People don't ''think'' ideology, they ''feel'' it.)
-*: '''Response''': Even if only a few people are willing to insist that their beliefs must be reasonable (i.e. must fit the best available evidence), the Mapper is still a vital tool for:
+*: '''Responses''':
-*:* weeding out disinformation
+*:* In the overwhelming majority of debates in which I have been involved, the basic rules of determining truth were not the issue; opposing parties seemed to feel the need to at least maintain a ''pretense'' of reasoning from evidence.
-*:* overcoming one's own biases
+*:** As long as both parties are playing by the basic rules of reasoning from evidence, they must eventually arrive at non-conflicting answers.
-*:* making it clear whether an opposing viewpoint has merit
+*:** If one party refuses to produce any {{l/ip|evidence}} to defend their position, or summarily dismisses the evidence produced against it, then they are basically admitting that they are objectively wrong, and their position can be regarded as invalid.
-*:* achieving consensus, especially on complex issues, more quickly and definitively
+*:* Even if only a few people are willing to insist that their beliefs must be reasonable (i.e. must fit the best available evidence), the Mapper is still a vital tool for: