Thread: Rules of Engagement

These are not mine, and full credit goes to the folks over at PF. I thought it might be useful for our more argumentative ones to keep in mind.

1. Everybody uses reason, nobody suspends it. And using reason doesn't make you automatically right. Its a method not magic.

2. If you engage another person in a debate, it means you are interested in the topic. This is the only reason not OK for quitting.

3. People come from different cultural backgrounds. Self-evident for you, a huge leap for others. And not necessarily forward.

4. If you want to convince others, first you have to find out what exactly they believe to be true. Leave strawmen alone.

5. There is room for contradicting opinions on facts, but not for contradicting facts. Researching helps to resolve it.

6. The facts you present and the conclusions you draw from them are not the same thing. Don't hide behind them.

7. It is always possible that you are wrong and your opponent is right, no matter how unlikely. Keep this in mind.

8. Your opponent might use wrong arguments without knowing. You too by the way. Don't assume bad intentions automatically.

9. Disagreement with you is not automatically disagreement with the things you think you are representing.

10. The burden of proof falls on every person making a claim. Also you. Even if "everybody knows its true". No exceptions.

11. Stay on course. If you change the topic and "win", it doesn't mean you are right about the original question.

I agree largely... my main disagreement is with number 1. Some people are capable of consciously suspending their reason and then stifling their memory of doing so; of repeating without modification a fallacious argument which has been previously countered; of ignoring arguments and dealing with the cognitive dissonance by telling oneself that it was done for some reason other than having no answer (to reply would be below them, for instance); of temporarily losing the power to understand simple analogies; and a host of other behaviours that go by the general name of 'doublethink'.

Originally Posted by Xei

I agree largely... my main disagreement is with number 1. Some people are capable of consciously suspending their reason and then stifling their memory of doing so; of repeating without modification a fallacious argument which has been previously countered; of ignoring arguments and dealing with the cognitive dissonance by telling oneself that it was done for some reason other than having no answer (to reply would be below them, for instance); of temporarily losing the power to understand simple analogies; and a host of other behaviours that go by the general name of 'doublethink'.

Unless you're big fan of George Orwell, which wouldn't be surprising, the word you might actually be searching for is doublespeak, but their meanings are basically identical. Avoidance is of the utmost use in any argument, for instance, to circumvent an opponents point only to address said point at another intersection of reason, aligning an opponents weakness with your own strong suit, for example. These 'intersections' can be confusing, I agree, and lead to many possibilities for one to falter in an effort for argumentation, but is nonetheless a method of reason whether you find it digestible or not. Politicians are masters of manipulation, and whatever argumentative skill set they utilize is designed to convince, persuade, enrapture and overwhelm; without which they wouldn't be politicians, but they are also notorious for lying and deception. The question is, can you overlook a lie or deception for the "greater good"?

+1 for irony, xei

Feel free to substantiate that by providing one example of a post where I was engaged in doublethink.

Not that that would have any bearing on what I just said, which was just that some people do do it. But I find it scary and would be scared if you can back up your claim that I do it.

WTF!? Re-ignore me this instant!

Okay.

I didn't say anything about delaying a response for rhetorical reasons, I was talking about flat out ignoring a fatal argument; this is not a 'method of reason', it's a method of irrationality and denial. And I wasn't talking about doublespeak; doublespeak is a disingenuous means of speaking to influence or pacify others. Doublethink is much worse; it is a disingenuous means of thinking, to influence yourself. As Orwell describes it,

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink."

And in my experience it's a real phenomenon.

Originally Posted by Xei

And in my experience it's a real phenomenon.

I crave bubble gum for some reason.

I thought #1 meant that everyone should use reason. Or it could mean that everyone uses reason to some extent, but not with everything. That would make it true.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

I thought #1 meant that everyone should use reason. Or it could mean that everyone uses reason to some extent, but not with everything. That would make it true.

I think the idea is that many people only believe they're using reason, but number 1 is not allowing you to possess reason in itself as a means of attacking someone arguments. Even if their reasoning is fallacious, based upon emotional or biased conditions, or circular and under-examined, these must be reasonably addressed. You can't win an argument by virtue of controlling reason itself and defining reason by what you believe and defining illogical concepts by what you don't believe.

Maybe. Most of the rest of it though is about being mindful of how others form their views.