Personal tools
 
Views

Key

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 16:32, 28 August 2011 (edit)
Myclob (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Revision as of 16:34, 28 August 2011 (edit)
Myclob (Talk | contribs)

Next diff →
Line 1: Line 1:
-Key: +====Key:====
* A: Reasons to agree * A: Reasons to agree
* D: Reasons to disagree * D: Reasons to disagree
 +
 +====Why?====
I believe we should track the number of reasons to agree and disagree with each belief. At first this sounds stupid, because some arguments are better than others. And so just because you have a lot of stupid arguments to support a belief doesn't mean that it is correct, if there are just a few valid reasons to oppose a conclusion. However, if you count reasons to agree with reasons to agree, bad arguments won't have as much force. I believe we should track the number of reasons to agree and disagree with each belief. At first this sounds stupid, because some arguments are better than others. And so just because you have a lot of stupid arguments to support a belief doesn't mean that it is correct, if there are just a few valid reasons to oppose a conclusion. However, if you count reasons to agree with reasons to agree, bad arguments won't have as much force.
Line 9: Line 11:
Bertrand Russell said, "It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true". At some point ideas with more reasons to support them are more valid than those ideas with fewer reasons to support them. If not those reasons that are used, will be more valid, if they have more reasons to support them, and so on... Bertrand Russell said, "It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true". At some point ideas with more reasons to support them are more valid than those ideas with fewer reasons to support them. If not those reasons that are used, will be more valid, if they have more reasons to support them, and so on...
-That is why I think we should at least start counting the number of reasons to agree and disagree with each idea.+That is why I think we should at least start counting the number of reasons to agree and disagree with each idea.[[User:Myclob|Myclob]] 12:34, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

Revision as of 16:34, 28 August 2011

Key:

  • A: Reasons to agree
  • D: Reasons to disagree

Why?

I believe we should track the number of reasons to agree and disagree with each belief. At first this sounds stupid, because some arguments are better than others. And so just because you have a lot of stupid arguments to support a belief doesn't mean that it is correct, if there are just a few valid reasons to oppose a conclusion. However, if you count reasons to agree with reasons to agree, bad arguments won't have as much force.

For instance a reasons to agree with a reason to agree will support the original conclusion. For instance if your belief is that mankind causes some global warming, a reason to believe this might be that C02 causes global warming. A reason to believe that C02 causes global warming might be that in 1861, John Tyndal published laboratory results identifying CO2 as a greenhouse gas that absorbed heat rays (longwave radiation). From this example the belief that C02 causes global warming is strengthened by the number of reasons to agree with it, and this belief can strengthen other arguments, such as the belief that mankind is causing global warming by releasing C02.

Bertrand Russell said, "It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true". At some point ideas with more reasons to support them are more valid than those ideas with fewer reasons to support them. If not those reasons that are used, will be more valid, if they have more reasons to support them, and so on...

That is why I think we should at least start counting the number of reasons to agree and disagree with each idea.Myclob 12:34, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.