Re: intentionally distorting arguments

[William Beaty <billb@ESKIMO.COM>]

On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Robert A Cohen wrote:

> Now that I know more of the history of the debate, I can see why both
> sides are so defensive.  Much pride and reputation is at stake.  Still,
> I don't think the purpose of discussion is to "kill" your opponent.

This is a very good point, and it reminds me of another aspect of the
whole debate.  One purpose of the discussion is to "kill" any incorrect
ideas.  If John Denker is right, and also Drs. Anderson and Eberhardt are
right, then we simply need to show how their ideas are not in conflict.
If either party (or me!) is wrong, then their ideas must "die".  They must
be shown to be flawed, and the flaws must be so clear that all opponents
can agree that they are real.

As I see it, a great problem appears when we decide to make our ideas a
part of ourselves. If we do this, then anyone who threatens to expose and
destroy our mistaken ideas is also threatening to harm us.  Whenever we
put great emotional investments into particular ideas, the pain of a
destroyed idea becomes excruciatingly real and personal.

> I
> think both sides were wrong in this respect (two wrongs don't make a
> right, you know).

I believe that John Denker's wrong ideas "must die."   I am still open to
the idea that I might be wrong about their inaccuracy.  Can anyone shoot
down my analyses of his ideas which I've posted so far?

I also see that Mr. Denker is "guilty" of defending a wrong idea, of
resisting having his mind changed by logical arguments, and most
importantly, also guilty of going around trying to silence his rivals by
asking that their links be removed from websites because their information
is in conflict with his own ideas.  If he did not contact Dr. Levy, then I
would not be forcing the issue, and it would remain one of "religious
battles."


> Nonetheless, I don't see the debating tactics as a purposeful technique to
> *confuse* the "opponents".  Rather, I think many of the statements that
> caused confusion were the result of unclear writing.

I agree that there is a terrific amount of unclear writing (much of it my
own!)  I take this into account.  Even so, I am still almost certain that
the problem here goes far beyond misunderstandings between us.  If John is
using "debating tactics" which sow confusion, then he should be confronted
about this even if he is doing it without realizing it.  I see that
"intentional" is a very hot word.  Perhaps his "debating tactics" are
habitual, not intentional.  As I said before, these tactics are perfectly
acceptable on the Newsgroups, because a debate on the newsgroups rarely
has anything to do with science or the high standards which must be part
of scientific debates.   Perhaps John has developed some bad habits which
cause him to act inappropriately on a non-newsgroups forum.


> With a little time to think about them, I believe I was able to figure
> out what the author "meant" to say

Go back many days and try to follow the thread of the arguments.  When I
counter one of John's arguments or ask for clarification of his
viewpoints, does he address this?  Or does he drop the thread and instead
launch a new argument?  If he simply drops the thread, then I don't know
if I've convinced him, or if he rejects my arguments, or if he has even
*seen* my arguments.  If I ask questions and he doesn't answer them, I can
assume that the conversation is taking too much time, so he must carefully
choose which messages to answer.  However, if I keep asking the same
questions over and over (like, "Do you still assert that there is a force
between the wing and the surface of the earth?"), and yet he does not
answer, then I am forced to conclude that he is not playing fair.  He
seems to be avoiding any communication which will clarify his position
(and hence give me a clear target.)

 From my viewpoint, his repeatedly ignoring my arguments and questions is a
clear example of evasion.  It seems to be an attempt to avoid confronting
information that might lead to exposure of the flaws in his arguments.
Also, he seems to be working from the philosophy that "the best defence is
a good offense".  I see that such a philosophy is repugnant in a
scientific discussion, since the "good offense" in question will prevent
our opponent from finding chinks in our armor.  This is wrong.  In a
scientific discussion, everyone should be LOOKING FOR the chinks in
everyone's armor including their own, and pointing out the weak spots so
all can see and so the truth can be exposed.  Here's a way to say it.  In
science, the proper philosophy is "The best defense is attempted suicide!"
:)  Hold up your idea then attack it yourself.  This will demonstrate how
how strong it is. Help the "enemy" in any way you can, since the goal is
to expose and eliminate hidden flaws. If our goal is to HIDE our flaws and
artificially preserve our mistaken logic, then I agree that a powerful
tactic is "The best defense is a good offense."



> and I believe others could do the
> same if they would just spend more time to think about the posts before
> responding.  Thus, my guess is that much of the disagreement was due
> more to "knee-jerk"  reactions than a purposeful intention to confuse.
> Perhaps participants should contemplate their response for a day before
> posting it.

That's a good point to bring up.  It's not obvious how long I wait before
sending my messages.  I've been messing around on internet since 1994, and
early on I had several experiences which taught me the danger of sending
messages in the heat of anger. Most of my "hot topic" messages sit around
for about a day before I send them.  Some are several days old (which has
hurt the flow of a thread on several occasions.)  Others I put off for
hours before re-reading and editing them.  I have sent at least one "hot"
message without waiting.  I make certain to read every one about five
times before sending it, because I habitually polish my writing to achive
as much clarity as I am capable of.  I also try to remove all
unnecessarily inflammatory words. If there are inflammatory words in my
messages, I am extremely aware of them.  I intentionally put them there
after long and repeated consideration.

Do I yet regret sending any messages? No. Perhaps time will change this,
but days of waiting have not done so as yet.  I constantly re-read past
messages to check whether I've done anything which requires apology.  If I
am operating in "knee-jerk mode", then it usually takes my knees several
days to complete a single jerk.

> Personally, I think I see the validity of each point of view.  Below I
> list my conclusions.  I'm bracing myself for criticism but would
> appreciate some constructive feedback.

I'll address some of these in a following message.  Constructive criticism
only!   :)


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb@eskimo.com                                  http://www.amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L