Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to Who has ever lost an argument here

re: Who has ever lost an argument here
Robert — (archived)

I guess it comes down to definitions of an argument.

I've been proven wrong many times on matters of hard fact. I just have to take my lumps when that happens, and admit it and concede the point.

But hard facts are a minor theme in most of our debates about non-scientific topics. They tend to be used as ammo to make another point, usually a point that's more subjective and value-based. I.e., a typical pattern would be "my belief system is superior because it produces this factual outcome". The problem is that facts used that way are invariably spun and can be countered with another set of facts spun another way. Statistics are the most extreme case, and our Statistics Master TB has never been able to spin his statistics convincingly enough to get me to concede I'm wrong--I just dredge up another set of statistics that seems to support my case, and make an obvious allusion to Benjamin Disraeli's famous observation on the subject.

Most of our debates are a clash between value and belief systems, and I've never lost one of those. Nor have I ever won one--I've converted nobody to my way of thinking. I suspect that the frustration many express about how nobody listens and everybody is pig-headed and stubborn comes from the unreasonable expectation that it's possible through argument to get people to abandon deeply-held values and convictions.

I'd say that TB is the poster boy for somebody who relies on presenting facts and statistics to support a subjective argument, and I think it has little persuasive power with me because the facts are so obviously spun to support an agenda, and because these so-called facts are often just proxies for the real issues of values and philosophy we're debating. Argument by indirection lacks real power.

TB will never be able to trot out enough spun statistics to convince me that a banana republic distribution of income is a sign of a healthy socioeconomic system, ditto 500-to-1 ratios of CEO-to-worker pay; that exploitation of other people is a noble undertaking that reveals high character; that Republicans are always right and noble and that Democrats are always wrong and evil; that offshoring American jobs leads to prosperity for everyone; that taxes are perpetually too high; that government is inherently evil; that collaborating with other Americans to solve problems and improve things is Communism; that George Bush has a clue; etc. etc. etc. All those things are, to me, either simply incorrect or morally repugnant.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it, and I don't expect I'll ever lose an argument about those values.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (78 posts)