I Admire People Who Have Knowledge and Debating Skills

[BBL]

To those who contributed to the thread that I (innocently) started and is now closed, thank you for some interesting viewpoints, experiences, and predictions. I enjoyed them all.
Just sorry it ended the way it did.

So, thank you, to those who made excellent contributions to the thread.

I did not realize threads on this subject resulted in eventually being closed. I'm fairly new to the forum really. I apologize for my naivety. But, it is not so much the subject matter I think, it is the ratcheting unrelated to the topic.

Be well, everyone!
I am a TRF loyalist!

DM (the new Daniel)

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=631194

(Mods, you may close this thread also, if you so wish. Thank you.)

[Wesley Crusher]

I always appreciate a good debate. It’s fine for people to have different opinions and to disagree with each other as long as we can do it in a civil and respectable way. Unfortunately today, civility has gone out the window and debates usually boil down to “I’m right and you’re wrong” lol.

[SPMN]

I agree. Argument/debate is an invaluable skill and unfortunately an increasingly lost form of art. It forces an individual to truly examine their own point of view, from all sides, and with more complete information than their own limited experience.

When we don’t do that, we end up in a scary position where everyone retreats into their own bubbles, which are too often nothing more than echo chambers that harden viewpoints and lessen sympathy for others. When we do argue, it quickly devolves into something ugly because we don’t possess the skills required for healthy debate.

[Burlington]

Originally Posted by SPMN

I agree. Argument/debate is an invaluable skill and unfortunately an increasingly lost form of art. It forces an individual to truly examine their own point of view, from all sides, and with more complete information than their own limited experience.

When we don’t do that, we end up in a scary position where everyone retreats into their own bubbles, which are too often nothing more than echo chambers that harden viewpoints and lessen sympathy for others. When we do argue, it quickly devolves into something ugly because we don’t possess the skills required for healthy debate.

True words indeed, succinctly put.

[enjoythemusic]

Am sooo glad there was great schooling when i was a small lad.

"You realize when you know how to think, it empowers you far beyond those who know only what to think." -- Neil deGrasse Tyson

[1William]

One of my favorite quotes goes along with the discussion of a debate. "A true measure of intelligence is the ability to hold both sides of a discussion/debate." It does not mean that you have to agree with another viewpoint but respect the individuals ability to believe something different. I find most of the disagreement and disrespect is really about something that we may not be discussing. Respect for others starts with respect for ones self.

[Abdullah71601]

It lasted much longer than usual. That topic is normally locked in under 10 posts.

I don't understand the vitriol in these discussions. It seems people can't have a conversation without becoming emotional.

[Syed117]

I understand where you are coming from but that thread went exactly where I thought it would go.

There's usually no point in public discourse because people who have no experience or understanding about specific topics feel their opinions are as valid as those of experts.

Imagine you're doing your job. You've spent a lifetime studying, training, and learning about the thing you do. Then random people who have little to no understanding of that thing walk into your office and tell you that you're wrong and that somehow they know better.

That's where we are as a society right now.

There are people who believe the earth is flat...

Not everyone should have a voice.

[uscmatt99]

Originally Posted by Syed117

I understand where you are coming from but that thread went exactly where I thought it would go.

There's usually no point in public discourse because people who have no experience or understanding about specific topics feel their opinions are as valid as those of experts.

Imagine you're doing your job. You've spent a lifetime studying, training, and learning about the thing you do. Then random people who have little to no understanding of that thing walk into your office and tell you that you're wrong and that somehow they know better.

That's where we are as a society right now.

There are people who believe the earth is flat...

Not everyone should have a voice.

I agree with some of your sentiments, especially at the top. I have to say though that it can be helpful to be challenged by those with less knowledge on a topic in which you hold expertise. Part of being an expert is the ability to distill your knowledge such that it can be understood by someone without that expertise. This is why I respect people like Neil Degrasse Tyson so much.

I also think that even flat-earthers should have a voice. There are probably people who would argue against the presence of gas molecules in air because they can't see them with their eyes... even when they feel them blowing across their face, and ironically disperse their incorrect views of the world by rarefaction and condensation of those little molecules.

It's a slippery slope to decide whose opinions matter and whose don't from a wholesale perspective. Of course it does highlight the streak of ignorance and accompanying defiance possessed by a large minority of people across the globe

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by Syed117

I understand where you are coming from but that thread went exactly where I thought it would go.

There's usually no point in public discourse because people who have no experience or understanding about specific topics feel their opinions are as valid as those of experts.

Imagine you're doing your job. You've spent a lifetime studying, training, and learning about the thing you do. Then random people who have little to no understanding of that thing walk into your office and tell you that you're wrong and that somehow they know better.

That's where we are as a society right now.

There are people who believe the earth is flat...

Not everyone should have a voice.

This topic is a trigger for people. Most people have formed strong opinions based on simplified media presentations that don't accurately characterize the data or the issues.

I'm in the regulated community and we've looked at the topic pretty hard. I think I am very well informed on the technical details. I tried to have the conversation with my dad and he got pissed off in less than a minute, refusing to listen to any argument. Sudden emotional response tells me the issue has become political, and we know how political discussions usually end.

To your point, most discussions have become political. Google gives people just enough information to be dangerous. They form strong opinions without a sound foundation of knowledge on the topic, then apply whatever societal leaning they have to the discussion. The polarization we formerly only saw in election years now applies to everything.

Originally Posted by uscmatt99

I agree with some of your sentiments, especially at the top. I have to say though that it can be helpful to be challenged by those with less knowledge on a topic in which you hold expertise. Part of being an expert is the ability to distill your knowledge such that it can be understood by someone without that expertise. This is why I respect people like Neil Degrasse Tyson so much.

I also think that even flat-earthers should have a voice. There are probably people who would argue against the presence of gas molecules in air because they can't see them with their eyes... even when they feel them blowing across their face, and ironically disperse their incorrect views of the world by rarefaction and condensation of those little molecules.

It's a slippery slope to decide whose opinions matter and whose don't from a wholesale perspective. Of course it does highlight the streak of ignorance and accompanying defiance possessed by a large minority of people across the globe

The thing that separates man from monkey is our ability to reason and compromise. All opinions matter, but the ability to reason allows us to weight opinions based on their appropriateness to the conversation. Even a knucklehead occasionally has a brilliant idea. We do better as a society when we listen to views that differ from our own.

[Syed117]

Originally Posted by uscmatt99

I agree with some of your sentiments, especially at the top. I have to say though that it can be helpful to be challenged by those with less knowledge on a topic in which you hold expertise. Part of being an expert is the ability to distill your knowledge such that it can be understood by someone without that expertise. This is why I respect people like Neil Degrasse Tyson so much.

I also think that even flat-earthers should have a voice. There are probably people who would argue against the presence of gas molecules in air because they can't see them with their eyes... even when they feel them blowing across their face, and ironically disperse their incorrect views of the world by rarefaction and condensation of those little molecules.

It's a slippery slope to decide whose opinions matter and whose don't from a wholesale perspective. Of course it does highlight the streak of ignorance and accompanying defiance possessed by a large minority of people across the globe

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

This topic is a trigger for people. Most people have formed strong opinions based on simplified media presentations that don't accurately characterize the data or the issues.

I'm in the regulated community and we've looked at the topic pretty hard. I think I am very well informed on the technical details. I tried to have the conversation with my dad and he got pissed off in less than a minute, refusing to listen to any argument. Sudden emotional response tells me the issue has become political, and we know how political discussions usually end.

To your point, most discussions have become political. Google gives people just enough information to be dangerous. They form strong opinions without a sound foundation of knowledge on the topic, then apply whatever societal leaning they have to the discussion. The polarization we formerly only saw in election years now applies to everything.



The thing that separates man from monkey is our ability to reason and compromise. All opinions matter, but the ability to reason allows us to weight opinions based on their appropriateness to the conversation. Even a knucklehead occasionally has a brilliant idea. We do better as a society when we listen to views that differ from our own.

For me personally, I want hard (or as hard as it can get) data and conclusions from that data to be made by scientists.

I have a science background, but it is obviously not all encompassing. When I need information, I turn to people who are experts in their field. Those are the people who I want disseminating that information.

I don't want some politician who has a glass of water with ice IN IT and then him telling me that the glass doesn't overflow when the ice melts...

The loud ones who yell and scream because their political views outweigh all else are the most dangerous people. They are responsible for society not moving forward and for people in 2018 believing the world is flat.

You know what? If a coalition of international scientists released evidence tomorrow, it was peer reviewed and had scientific evidence that the world is a flat disc spinning on the back of giant turtle, I would put my effort in and if it all checked out, I would believe it.

There was a post in the other thread that said something ridiculous about how humans are just animals and we are changing our environment and that might not be bad or unnatural.

I almost had an aneurysm after I read that. That's what the thought process is. That person used the word natural to describe what humanity's effect on the planet is. Yeah, maybe if we went back to a hunter gatherer lifestyle, maybe we could compare ourselves to other species and their effects, but that thought process left me stunned. You can't debate against that.

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by Syed117

For me personally, I want hard (or as hard as it can get) data and conclusions from that data to be made from scientists.

I have a science background, but it is obviously not all encompassing. When I need information, I turn to people who are experts in their field. Those are the people who I want disseminating that information.

I don't want some politician who has a glass of water with ice IN IT and then him telling me that the glass doesn't overflow when the ice melts...

The loud ones who yell and scream because their political views outweigh all else are the most dangerous people. They are responsible for society not moving forward and for people in 2018 believing the world is flat.

You know what? If a coalition of international scientists released evidence tomorrow, it was peer reviewed and had scientific evidence that the world is a flat disc spinning on the back of giant turtle, I would put my effort in and if it all checked out, I would believe it.

There was a post in the other thread that said something ridiculous about how humans are just animals and we are changing our environment and that might not be bad or unnatural.

I almost had an aneurysm after I read that. That's what the thought process is. That person used the world natural to describe what humanity's effect on the planet is. Yeah, maybe if we went back to a hunter gatherer lifestyle, maybe we could compare ourselves to other species and their effects, but that thought process left me stunned. You can't debate against that.

Same here.

[uscmatt99]

Originally Posted by Syed117

For me personally, I want hard (or as hard as it can get) data and conclusions from that data to be made by scientists.

I have a science background, but it is obviously not all encompassing. When I need information, I turn to people who are experts in their field. Those are the people who I want disseminating that information.

I don't want some politician who has a glass of water with ice IN IT and then him telling me that the glass doesn't overflow when the ice melts...

The loud ones who yell and scream because their political views outweigh all else are the most dangerous people. They are responsible for society not moving forward and for people in 2018 believing the world is flat.

You know what? If a coalition of international scientists released evidence tomorrow, it was peer reviewed and had scientific evidence that the world is a flat disc spinning on the back of giant turtle, I would put my effort in and if it all checked out, I would believe it.

There was a post in the other thread that said something ridiculous about how humans are just animals and we are changing our environment and that might not be bad or unnatural.

I almost had an aneurysm after I read that. That's what the thought process is. That person used the word natural to describe what humanity's effect on the planet is. Yeah, maybe if we went back to a hunter gatherer lifestyle, maybe we could compare ourselves to other species and their effects, but that thought process left me stunned. You can't debate against that.

It is very difficult to reason with someone who has an inherent distrust in the scientific method and resorts to magical thinking. In fact the harder you try, the less effective you will be at swaying that person's opinion. Really, only confirmation from the authority in that person's belief system has the ability to change their mind.

While I strongly disagree with Abdullah's opinion on the matter, I respect the fact that he has properly educated himself and formed his own perspective, and is willing to discuss in an open forum. Like you, when the vast majority of the scientific community reaches a consensus after years of debate, that's where I'm placing my bet, and this is the winning bet almost every time. But let's not forget that scientists are people too, and group-think can take hold where leaders in a field can subtly push others to view results of their research through the wrong lens for personal benefit (awards, more grants for positive studies, etc.).

Abdullah, I actually am very much in agreement with you on other topics you've posted on, just not this one. So here's to open debate

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by uscmatt99

It is very difficult to reason with someone who has an inherent distrust in the scientific method and resorts to magical thinking. In fact the harder you try, the less effective you will be at swaying that person's opinion. Really, only confirmation from the authority in that person's belief system has the ability to change their mind.

While I strongly disagree with Abdullah's opinion on the matter, I respect the fact that he has properly educated himself and formed his own perspective, and is willing to discuss in an open forum. Like you, when the vast majority of the scientific community reaches a consensus after years of debate, that's where I'm placing my bet, and this is the winning bet almost every time. But let's not forget that scientists are people too, and group-think can take hold where leaders in a field can subtly push others to view results of their research through the wrong lens for personal benefit (awards, more grants for positive studies, etc.).

Abdullah, I actually am very much in agreement with you on other topics you've posted on, just not this one. So here's to open debate

At least the scientist provide reasons why they believe it to be where as most with exception of the very few like Abdullah just state they don't believe it to be so.

So for me (the non-scientist) I have to side with those that provide reasons why it maybe so.

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by uscmatt99

It is very difficult to reason with someone who has an inherent distrust in the scientific method and resorts to magical thinking. In fact the harder you try, the less effective you will be at swaying that person's opinion. Really, only confirmation from the authority in that person's belief system has the ability to change their mind.

While I strongly disagree with Abdullah's opinion on the matter, I respect the fact that he has properly educated himself and formed his own perspective, and is willing to discuss in an open forum. Like you, when the vast majority of the scientific community reaches a consensus after years of debate, that's where I'm placing my bet, and this is the winning bet almost every time. But let's not forget that scientists are people too, and group-think can take hold where leaders in a field can subtly push others to view results of their research through the wrong lens for personal benefit (awards, more grants for positive studies, etc.).

Abdullah, I actually am very much in agreement with you on other topics you've posted on, just not this one. So here's to open debate

In a prior job we had a facility in a coastal zone and were budgeting to move the hard structures to higher ground, or to a different region altogether. But we couldn't get a hard number for change in mean sea level. Do we spend $25 million guessing our ground here is high enough, or $500 million moving 200 miles. The sticking point was the models didn't account for how much water vapor the atmosphere would hold at predicted average temperature. The MSL error in the prediction was 10 meters - 33 feet. That's an error too large to make a half billion dollar decision on.

Scientists argue largely in the theoretical. Engineers live in the real world. While science may predict a thing with an error acceptable in that field, engineering requires a level of precision that foolproofs a design. People want to make high impact decisions on the notional science, but it's really the engineering that has to work out. The difference between you and I on this topic is probably a lot less about the science than it is about the engineering.

[Star Ferry]

Originally Posted by Syed117

There was a post in the other thread that said something ridiculous about how humans are just animals and we are changing our environment and that might not be bad or unnatural.

I almost had an aneurysm after I read that. That's what the thought process is. That person used the word natural to describe what humanity's effect on the planet is. Yeah, maybe if we went back to a hunter gatherer lifestyle, maybe we could compare ourselves to other species and their effects, but that thought process left me stunned. You can't debate against that.

I am "that person" and it was a comment for purposes of discussion. I believe in global warming and also believe it is undesirable for many reasons.

My point is that even in the context of science, we still deal with semantics and also make value judgments about what is or isn't desirable. "Unnatural" is anything not natural, so the meaning hinges on what we choose to define as "natural" ... a rational person who considers global warming natural would implicitly be accepting a very broad definition of "natural"

You can call it ridiculous, aneurysm-inducing, etc. but I think you read things into my comment that were not actually in the text.

[brandrea]

I miss BC

[superdog]

Originally Posted by brandrea

I miss BC

And me too.

[Wesley Crusher]

Originally Posted by brandrea

I miss BC

Funniest guy on this forum, for sure.

[superdog]

Me too.

[Knappo 1307]

IBTL again.....

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by Knappo 1307

IBTL again.....

Hey Jason! Nice to see you posting outside the FS section.

[The Libertine]

I like to debate; however, believe reasoning that is well-timed and properly-applied carries more weight and import than empty rhetoric.

[Blansky]

Since the vast majority of people are ignorant and stupid, it’s hardly a surprise that the internet is a haven/home for like minded crackpots to find solace. And debating them is a massive waste of time.

Go on any site and read comments sections and the fact that our species is still in existence becomes more and more mind boggling.

I love watching the veil of civilization fall away so effortlessly when someone thinks they have anonymity.

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by Blansky

Since the vast majority of people are ignorant and stupid, it’s hardly a surprise that the internet is a haven/home for like minded crackpots to find solace. And debating them is a massive waste of time.

Go on any site and read comments sections and the fact that our species is still in existence becomes more and more mind boggling.

I love watching the veil of civilization fall away so effortlessly when someone thinks they have anonymity.

Somebody has to dig the ditch.

There is a place in the world for every skill set, no matter how uninformed it may be on a topic which we may have expertise.

[Blansky]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

Somebody has to dig the ditch.

There is a place in the world for every skill set, no matter how uninformed it may be on a topic which we may have expertise.

I would agree. That’s basic tolerance. Where it has gotten tricky is the current trend of everyone’s opinion is equally valid. This is new.

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by Blansky

I would agree. That’s basic tolerance. Where it has gotten tricky is the current trend of everyone’s opinion is equally valid. This is new.

Everyone's opinion IS equally valid. Which opinions are actionable is based entirely on the specifics of a situation. I listen to a lot of BS. Every now and then there is a nugget of wisdom nestled amongst the turds.

[Blansky]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

Everyone's opinion IS equally valid. Which opinions are actionable is based entirely on the specifics of a situation. I listen to a lot of BS. Every now and then there is a nugget of wisdom nestled amongst the turds.

On that we disagree. When I use the word valid I mean right or factual or truthful.

Everyone can have an opinion. That’s how we learn and grow. But if it’s just magical thinking it’s not valid (using my previous criteria). It is merely a theory.

YMMV

[droptopman]

Heuristics drives much of this. People get anchored to and idea/believe and it can be hard to move them off of it. The stronger the emotional connection and the more vivid the memory is of this, the stronger the anchor will be.

I tend to agree with Abdullah regarding people forming opinions/beliefs based on simplified media portrayals. I do not watch the news often but occasionally I will see data presented and look for the source of the data. When I examine the source of the data, it is clear the data is being misrepresented in many cases to drive the presenters agenda. In some cases when studied the data/research actually proves the exact opposite of what and how it is being presented. I do not think most people take the time to actually view to source before forming their opinion.

[AzPaul]

'Debating' in an online forum is usually a fool's errand. What I see so often, the back and forth of picking apart one another's posts, seems more about ego and one's personal need to come out on top, than anything about sharing information. Not always, of course, but a lot of the time.


So for the most part, I'll continue to keep reading here, hope I learn a thing or two, and leave the keyboard jousting to those who enjoy it.