EPTOn July 13 2011 08:01 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
I don't believe this, and that article only makes me more sure of my correctness.
I don't believe this, and that article only makes me more sure of my correctness.
Lol seems kind of paradoxical.
Science: You'll never win on the internet. - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
KimJongChill
United States6429 Posts
Lol seems kind of paradoxical. | ||
|
AndAgain
United States2621 Posts
| ||
|
Vore210
Ireland256 Posts
But it depends on the mindset of each individual. The purpose of debate is not necessarily to reach a goal but rather explore the issue. If I say something that turns out was wrong/misconceived, I learn from it and never mention it again, or use the new information. I enjoy that learning aspect. I feel myself growing mentally, and I feel i've gained a lot intellectually from the internet (and reading, of course). Reminds of of one time speaking with my Dad. He was talking to me about jehovah's witnesses coming to the door to his house when he was younger. He knew quite a bit of theological information and they discussed it at length, and the JW's were surprised at what theology he knew, saying that the people they have gone to, some of which they had converted, knew nowhere near as much. So my Dad says to me, "so they were going around, converting catholics (as im in ireland, of course  ) who didn't know better to jehovah's witnesses. I think that's wrong". To which I replied "yes, but isn't that exactly what catholics do to children who don't know better? Labelling and making them a catholic when they don't have the knowledge, nor even the ability to choose? They do it to adults too" And he was kinda speechless at that, because he literally never thought of it that way. In the end im pretty sure I didn't change his mind about it at all, even though his own faith does the same thing.It's certainly hard to judge your own beliefs to the extent you judge others. Especially because years of walling yourself up inside your own belief makes alternate opinions or uncomfortable facts seem...alien. Which explains the reception atheists get from many religious people, they're literally not able to believe (or understand) a "lack of belief". I don't mean to turn this into religious argument by the way, its just an anecdote, somewhat showing the point of what OP was saying. Most arguments about beliefs are about religion after all. Interesting article nonetheless, guess we all sorta felt that was the case anyway  . | ||
|
Eleaven
772 Posts
| ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On July 13 2011 07:21 BlackJack wrote: I though this was rather well known. Colbert had a guy on his show last night that was talking about another effect: instead of seeking out evidence to form opinions, you form opinions and then seek the evidence to confirm your opinion. That's really interesting because that's definitely the most common case. Sure, sometimes you're actually very into something and know much about it and an argument forms and you already have tons of facts etc to use when you argument. Most of the time though, you go into a topic, see an argument, pick a side, THEN try to find your facts. | ||
|
targ
Malaysia445 Posts
When this happens, it's often hard to judge the extent of your influence, because they will often read the points on both sides, then only post after their viewpoint has been changed by you. | ||
|
Osmoses
Sweden5302 Posts
That article isn't science, it's a series of anecdotes. Edit: please don't ever point at anything, ever, and say "this is the truth". Because all you have to share is your perception of it. | ||
|
ondik
Czech Republic2908 Posts
| ||
|
Osmoses
Sweden5302 Posts
On July 13 2011 16:46 ondik wrote: I'd like to know why is this aimed at the internet? I mean isn't it almost the same in the real life? Have you ever got into debate with someone who had completely different opinion (not just neutral opinion) on politics/global warming/gay marriage/gun control/healthcare, challenged him with facts and saw how he changed his opionion afterwards? No, it just doesn't happen. And why is that? Do you think other people are just retarded and reject facts so that they can wilfully continue to delude themselves? Or do you think it's because they don't believe your facts are, in fact, facts? Being skeptical of the source is a good thing. Obviously there are some negative effects in terms of never being able to convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced of anything, but the alternative would be everyone believing anything as long as you present a pie-chart first. | ||
|
Hairy
United Kingdom1169 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gdNMB.png) My problem is I am compelled to argue when I feel the other person's views are plain retarded. I just can't understand how they could possibly have come to that conclusion, and, surely, by presenting solid logic and evidence they would reconsider? ...and no, never does seem to work. Not surprising, really, when you consider that many people I argued with had beliefs that had NO supporting evidence and/or logic. I don't argue on the internet anymore, I just walk away; it's not worth my time. Of course, I still spend time in forums, which isn't really much of an improvement as far as wasting time goes.... | ||
|
Hairy
United Kingdom1169 Posts
On July 13 2011 16:56 Osmoses wrote: Do you think other people are just retarded and reject facts so that they can wilfully continue to delude themselves? ...yes. | ||
|
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
On July 13 2011 16:38 Osmoses wrote: So basically, someone got pissy because they never managed to influence someone, made a half-assed study and bla bla bla I'm obviously pigeonholed into dumbassedry just because I disagree with the article. That article isn't science, it's a series of anecdotes. Edit: please don't ever point at anything, ever, and say "this is the truth". Because all you have to share is your perception of it. So true. And I don't see why is he limiting this to just the internet. All that winning thing It depends mostly on the character of the person you're arguing with/challenging. For example you'll never get to "win" IdrA on BW or SC2. BTW I consider myself an IdrA fan :D | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
In the speficific field of science, "truth" is not something that can easily be defined nor achieve. Most of the time, academics takes a huge time to agree on something, especially in social science. It's the same on the internet, most of time everybody has his own bit of "truth", of "right", and that's why people usually reject the argument of others : even if they don't have the tools to explain how their belief is based on empirical fact, they know from their own life experience that it's somehow right, and based on their experience, they reject the argument of others. I don't think there is a specific human thought process on the internet that push us to refuse others' arguments. I think it's more that most of the time there are 1) misunderstanding 2) or it's just too difficult for someone to explain his thought process because he doesn't have the cultural capital / language to do so. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
90% of the disagreements between human beings derive from semantic misunderstanding. If you disagree with someone, chances are, you didn't understand what he's saying. | ||
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
You can never learn if you don't admit being wrong. Actually that's one of the greatest pleasures in life, being wrong. It's more that modern people seem to think of themselves as gods, to the point it becomes ridiculous. | ||
|
Tuczniak
1561 Posts
You won't convince other people who are arguing in 99.99%, but i wouldn't say these thread are meaningless. | ||
|
Mecker
Sweden219 Posts
On July 13 2011 17:22 VIB wrote: 90% of the disagreements between human beings derive from semantic misunderstanding. If you disagree with someone, chances are, you didn't understand what he's saying. I completely agree. Anyway, "winning" an argument over a person who I do not know personally is completely irrelevant to my life. The only reason one could have to argue with people you don't know is to further develop your own understanding of the topic at hand. | ||
|
Kira__
Sweden2672 Posts
| ||
|
Phenny
Australia1435 Posts
On July 13 2011 17:30 HwangjaeTerran wrote: Nah, I know I never do that. When there is new empirical proof against me I shut the fuck up. You can never learn if you don't admit being wrong. Actually that's one of the greatest pleasures in life, being wrong. It's more that modern people seem to think of themselves as gods, to the point it becomes ridiculous. Great post, I am much the same. Being wrong is really a learning experience as strange as it may sound. | ||
|
Darclite
United States1021 Posts
On July 13 2011 07:35 Zato-1 wrote: If, on the other hand, you make your point with politeness and humility, then your counterpart will be much more likely to find what you say palatable and give your arguments a fair chance. The most stunning thing about this post is that your post count is over 2,000, indicating you have used the internet for a long time, and that you said that lol (Take no offense, it's just a joke, and I only say it because my experiences never go too well no matter what). Maybe your experiences have been better than mine, it's just that I approach most online debates with politeness and humility (put the opening line aside lol), telling them why I disagree and following up with a series of statistics and articles from reliable sources, and then citing them, and am subsequently flamed (being told to go die, that I am a waste of life, that my sources are extremely biased, that I am a fag and an abomination, that I am automatically everything that they don't like even if they don't know what it is (on multiple occasions i am a satanist+atheist or socialist+anarchist lol), that they are automatically smarter, that I have no life because I'm posting on the internet, or that I am a bitch/dumbass/motherfucker/loser/retard/asshole/scrub/nerd/douche/faggot etc.). So I like the article. On July 13 2011 16:59 Hairy wrote: My problem is I am compelled to argue when I feel the other person's views are plain retarded. I just can't understand how they could possibly have come to that conclusion, and, surely, by presenting solid logic and evidence they would reconsider? ...and no, never does seem to work. Not surprising, really, when you consider that many people I argued with had beliefs that had NO supporting evidence and/or logic. I don't argue on the internet anymore, I just walk away; it's not worth my time. Of course, I still spend time in forums, which isn't really much of an improvement as far as wasting time goes.... Well said. | ||
| ||
