5 ms·

Sure, but how does this work in todays era where feelings/opinion are considered by many to be the same as fact or at least valid support for an argument?

rexpop 8y ago
Is that really what's happening "in today's era"? I think this is a smear tactic--an ad-hominem, if you will--employed by some parties to discredit others. Take, for example, the following slogan: > Facts don't care about your feelings. To me, that reads as a straw man. The enemy is defined to be in opposition to fact, when a more generous reading might be the inclusion of feelings among the facts. After all, we are being sensitive to our environment, and the internal impact of that environment actually matters. I find it funny to think that a person would design any system that impacts humans without considering the feelings it might engender. Without consideration of feelings, we may as well design systems for lifeless rocks.
- nilskidoo 8y ago
  But so much of what gets branded as fake news really is just a matter of undesirable opinion or inconvenient truth though. Just because we really, really like the idea of a thing, or vice versa, does not make it concrete and provable. That's voodoo, not reality.
  - nilskidoo 8y ago
    I remember a thread here from when I was just skulking years ago, where the importance for anonymity of candidates was weighed. Like, applicants would be masked so that there'd be no idea who was male or female or black or white, with the only variables observed being what they have accomplished and what they aim to get accomplished- and how they intend on going about it. Imagine if we did that in regards to politics.
    - sokoloff 8y ago
      The anonymous CEO of Trump real estate running in 2016, the anonymous Senator from Illinois running in 2008, the anonymous head of Bain Capital... At some level, someone’s accomplishments uniquely identify them.
      - rexpop 8y ago
        You've not done a very good job of pseudonymizing. It's clear where you stand, but try in earnest to imagine how we might limit the scope of the candidates' presentation to, e.g. a 60-plank, 3-dimensional platform (ie pro/con/neutral). Not saying this exact implementation is ideal, only that it's a more accurate representation of a pseudonymizing solution.
        sokoloff 8y ago
        If I want to evaluate a candidate’s record (say as governor of a state), I can’t see how to make that pseudonymous and productive. If you tell me the state and the time, so I can judge whatever criteria I find relevant (job growth, infant mortality, population happiness, housing affordability, or 500 other things), you’ve told me who it is, of course. I’m trying to be charitable; I’m just not able to be creative enough to find how to expansively evaluate track record of relevant experience.
- NegatioN 8y ago
  Whether or not feelings should be included as proof for something depends a whole lot on: are the feelings of this person relevant to the argument at hand. 1. Global warming is not untrue because someone feels a certain way about it. 2. I might have offended someone based on how they feel. Or a system might be oppressive based on how someone feels That's as far as I'm willing to let feelings serve as proof anyhow.
  - mistermann 8y ago
    This can get tricky though, and there's lots of "feelings" all over the place these days. There are a lot of somewhat vague "truths", some necessarily so, that have become largely considered as all encompassing, final, beyond debate truths, even though they may not necessarily be so. This seems a bit problematic to me.
tunesmith 8y ago
Depends on your argument, doesn't it? If it's a normative conclusion then it by definition ultimately rests on one or more personal values. The only times feelings/opinion don't matter are if you are making a strictly is/fact based argument/conclusion.
- swebs 8y ago
  There are certain scientific topics that have become politically charged for one reason or another, where arguing on the stance backed by science is considered heresy. You can be downvoted, banned, and even doxxed or harassed depending on how polarized the online group you're posting to is. Even if the proof you provide would be sufficient for any other topic, it will be meticulously picked apart and dismissed for any reason at all that they could scrounge up. People have already decided their conclusion and think any evidence that conflicts with it must be faulty.
tlear 8y ago
You get called some kind of -ist and kicked out. Argument over. Vast majority of people are utterly incapable of debate (this is not new). What is new is that it became normal not be embarrassed by that, in fact being incapable of debate is considered a plus. I treasure few friends I have that I can debate things with, so rare.
- AQuantized 8y ago
  How did you come to this conclusion? I suppose I can think of a few societies where debate was valued, but it seems like the exception rather than the norm, historically. Acquaintance with the types of abstraction that are often useful for debate also seem to be more prevalent now.
davesque 8y ago
It works by pointing out how that state of affairs is untenable. One thing that helps a person who supports their arguments with good evidence is that their ideas eventually turn out to be more consistent than those of a person who would do otherwise. Rational arguments have a tendency to stand up more on their own. On the other hand, emotional arguments, which are based on unjustified assumptions or opinions, often turn out to be inconsistent and force their defenders to ignore contradictions that are implied by the argument.
flukus 8y ago
> Sure, but how does this work in todays era where feelings/opinion are considered by many to be the same as fact or at least valid support for an argument? Perhaps this happens on a larger scale now but I don't think this is anything new, just look at presidential debates, the "winner" is typically the better orator, not the person who cites sources and is factually correct. Go back just a few decades more and "demonstrably true" is a concept largely confined to mathematics.
johnny22 8y ago
today's era? that doesn't sound right. When wasn't it the case?

rexpop 8y ago

Is that really what's happening "in today's era"? I think this is a smear tactic--an ad-hominem, if you will--employed by some parties to discredit others. Take, for example, the following slogan: > Facts don't care about your feelings. To me, that reads as a straw man. The enemy is defined to be in opposition to fact, when a more generous reading might be the inclusion of feelings among the facts. After all, we are being sensitive to our environment, and the internal impact of that environment actually matters. I find it funny to think that a person would design any system that impacts humans without considering the feelings it might engender. Without consideration of feelings, we may as well design systems for lifeless rocks.

nilskidoo 8y ago
But so much of what gets branded as fake news really is just a matter of undesirable opinion or inconvenient truth though. Just because we really, really like the idea of a thing, or vice versa, does not make it concrete and provable. That's voodoo, not reality.
- nilskidoo 8y ago
  I remember a thread here from when I was just skulking years ago, where the importance for anonymity of candidates was weighed. Like, applicants would be masked so that there'd be no idea who was male or female or black or white, with the only variables observed being what they have accomplished and what they aim to get accomplished- and how they intend on going about it. Imagine if we did that in regards to politics.
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    The anonymous CEO of Trump real estate running in 2016, the anonymous Senator from Illinois running in 2008, the anonymous head of Bain Capital... At some level, someone’s accomplishments uniquely identify them.
    - rexpop 8y ago
      You've not done a very good job of pseudonymizing. It's clear where you stand, but try in earnest to imagine how we might limit the scope of the candidates' presentation to, e.g. a 60-plank, 3-dimensional platform (ie pro/con/neutral). Not saying this exact implementation is ideal, only that it's a more accurate representation of a pseudonymizing solution.
      - sokoloff 8y ago
        If I want to evaluate a candidate’s record (say as governor of a state), I can’t see how to make that pseudonymous and productive. If you tell me the state and the time, so I can judge whatever criteria I find relevant (job growth, infant mortality, population happiness, housing affordability, or 500 other things), you’ve told me who it is, of course. I’m trying to be charitable; I’m just not able to be creative enough to find how to expansively evaluate track record of relevant experience.
NegatioN 8y ago
Whether or not feelings should be included as proof for something depends a whole lot on: are the feelings of this person relevant to the argument at hand. 1. Global warming is not untrue because someone feels a certain way about it. 2. I might have offended someone based on how they feel. Or a system might be oppressive based on how someone feels That's as far as I'm willing to let feelings serve as proof anyhow.
- mistermann 8y ago
  This can get tricky though, and there's lots of "feelings" all over the place these days. There are a lot of somewhat vague "truths", some necessarily so, that have become largely considered as all encompassing, final, beyond debate truths, even though they may not necessarily be so. This seems a bit problematic to me.

tunesmith 8y ago

Depends on your argument, doesn't it? If it's a normative conclusion then it by definition ultimately rests on one or more personal values. The only times feelings/opinion don't matter are if you are making a strictly is/fact based argument/conclusion.

swebs 8y ago
There are certain scientific topics that have become politically charged for one reason or another, where arguing on the stance backed by science is considered heresy. You can be downvoted, banned, and even doxxed or harassed depending on how polarized the online group you're posting to is. Even if the proof you provide would be sufficient for any other topic, it will be meticulously picked apart and dismissed for any reason at all that they could scrounge up. People have already decided their conclusion and think any evidence that conflicts with it must be faulty.

tlear 8y ago

You get called some kind of -ist and kicked out. Argument over. Vast majority of people are utterly incapable of debate (this is not new). What is new is that it became normal not be embarrassed by that, in fact being incapable of debate is considered a plus. I treasure few friends I have that I can debate things with, so rare.

AQuantized 8y ago
How did you come to this conclusion? I suppose I can think of a few societies where debate was valued, but it seems like the exception rather than the norm, historically. Acquaintance with the types of abstraction that are often useful for debate also seem to be more prevalent now.

davesque 8y ago

It works by pointing out how that state of affairs is untenable. One thing that helps a person who supports their arguments with good evidence is that their ideas eventually turn out to be more consistent than those of a person who would do otherwise. Rational arguments have a tendency to stand up more on their own. On the other hand, emotional arguments, which are based on unjustified assumptions or opinions, often turn out to be inconsistent and force their defenders to ignore contradictions that are implied by the argument.

flukus 8y ago

> Sure, but how does this work in todays era where feelings/opinion are considered by many to be the same as fact or at least valid support for an argument? Perhaps this happens on a larger scale now but I don't think this is anything new, just look at presidential debates, the "winner" is typically the better orator, not the person who cites sources and is factually correct. Go back just a few decades more and "demonstrably true" is a concept largely confined to mathematics.

johnny22 8y ago

today's era? that doesn't sound right. When wasn't it the case?