[mmasters]

I notice most the arguing on the site with regards to controversial topics is between 2 crowds. The first being the trust authority, facts, details and hard evidence crowd. The second being the critical thinking, big picture and mostly circumstancial evidence crowd.

Anyway, just thought I'd point that out.

[Tanada]

I think most people around here have their personal ideological filters they use to decide not only how they feel about subjects, but what subjects they even look at. I am fascinated by hard science topics like Peak Oil, but bored to tears by all the political mumbo-jumbo that some people live and breathe for.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mmasters', 'I') notice most the arguing on the site with regards to controversial topics is between 2 crowds. The first being the trust authority, facts, details and hard evidence crowd. The second being the critical thinking, big picture and mostly circumstancial evidence crowd.

Anyway, just thought I'd point that out.

[PrestonSturges]

Also some people are so desperate for any kind of attention that they will lap up negative attention like a severely neglected child. Across the internet there are thousands of people so desperate for human contact that they will beg others to heap abuse on them.

Also it is possible to take over an office, a club, a web site by cranking up the stupidity to make the whole experience depressing. Everyone else leaves and the dumbest guy takes over. A lot of families run that way.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PrestonSturges', 'A')lso it is possible to take over an office, a club, a web site by cranking up the stupidity to make the whole experience depressing. Everyone else leaves and the dumbest guy takes over.

[PrestonSturges]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Keith_McClary', 'T')hat happened to our town council.

[Tanada]

How did a discussion about common modes of discussion around here turn into another tea party bashing exercise? Oh yeah, two of our members used their ideological filters to determine we should not have an actual conversation about the topic and rant yet again about their favorite ideological Hobby Horse.

Knock it off, get back on topic. There are multiple threads for Tea Party bashing. This is not one of them.

Bashers go topic69971.html

[Lore]

Back on topic....

While the hard science of peak oil and climate change are fascinating. It really doesn't amount to much unless you place those facts into some kind of actual response. Like it or not, that means, on subjects of this magnitude it will require a political discourse to resolve the issues.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', 'B')ack on topic....

While the hard science of peak oil and climate change are fascinating. It really doesn't amount to much unless you place those facts into some kind of actual response. Like it or not, that means, on subjects of this magnitude it will require a political discourse to resolve the issues.

[MD]

I play a game called "fallacy count" when reading arguments

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Typically the fallacy count goes up as controversy increases.

In a balanced argument the fallacy count will be relatively low and with equal frequency from both sides.

With some arguments the fallacy count is one sided, and in those cases it's easy to figure out who to ignore.

Trolls often commit multiple fallacies in a single sentence, and will escalate the intensity with each counter post. Those are the ones that need moderation.

anyone come to mind?

[Tanada]

Interesting poster there MD. Honestly we all commit some logical fallacies when discussing topics but I can think of a few people around here who do it a lot more than others

It isn't all a conspiracy, it isn't all 43's or 44's fault. Besides does placing blame actually advance us towards a repair of Peak Oil? There are things we could be doing right now to cushion the transition. I would rather discuss the transitional stuff than the blame X for Y because they believe Z stuff. Some people are just a little different in their thinking processes...

[Lore]

The problem arises when you need to get people of a certain persuasion to act responsibly and not just on short term events, but on long term crisis issues. We often let political opinion trump fact.

Accepted science should not be subject to opinion, but change as a result of facts. Therefore calling someone a denier rather than a skeptic when the overwhelming evidence is ignored, or manipulated is an appropriate designation.

We're already seeing in the AGW discussion where the media is moving to give less weight to cover the opposing view of persons that don't believe in it. Just because you have a contrary opinion doesn't mean you deserve an equivalence of respect and time when all evidence suggests you are wrong. You wouldn't have someone from the flat earth society come on whenever you gave a global weather report, would you?

As the old saying goes, you're entitled to your opinions, but not your facts!

[MD]

null post^

[careinke]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PrestonSturges', 'A')lso some people are so desperate for any kind of attention that they will lap up negative attention like a severely neglected child. Across the internet there are thousands of people so desperate for human contact that they will beg others to heap abuse on them.

[Pops]

It's hard to argue factually and logically and non-personally when you are arguing about beliefs.

Is abortion murder?
What's murder? What's life?
Science can clone me from a cheek swab, does that mean I can't spit?
And if murder is taking life how to justify execution, war, drone strikes and lethal force to protect personal property?

I don't like abortion so don't get started, just pointing out that most of the controversial topics are knee-jerk, guy-reaction beliefs, either based on upbringing or as I've read, possibly from actual physical reactions to certain "things".

But did anyone notice how mmasters framed his 2 camps? Since he's not around I'm gonna dog im, LOL:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')rust authority, facts, details and hard evidence crowd.
The second being the critical thinking, big picture and mostly circumstancial evidence crowd.

[dinopello]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'S')houldn't the distinction be
critical thinking,facts, details, hard evidence and big picture;
vs
trust authority and circumstantial evidence ...

[americandream]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PrestonSturges', 'A')lso some people are so desperate for any kind of attention that they will lap up negative attention like a severely neglected child. Across the internet there are thousands of people so desperate for human contact that they will beg others to heap abuse on them.

Also it is possible to take over an office, a club, a web site by cranking up the stupidity to make the whole experience depressing. Everyone else leaves and the dumbest guy takes over. A lot of families run that way.

[Newfie]

Stupidity, but more likely an over abundance of neurosis.

In my career I've noticed that many organizations of sufficient size have some real asshole in a position of authority. Every one knows he's an ah, everyone talks about him, but there he is.

That got me thinking that if it is such a consistent phenomena then it likely serves some community function. Why would it be different here? Perhaps we have difficult people because others need them and encourage them in being difficult? Why is it soooo hard to not feed the trolls?

But back to the original question, I think any answer is far too simple. Yes there are big and detailed biases. But I think we all argue very much out of our personal experience and wishful thinking.

None of us are as logical as we would like to be. There are some scientist who argue we have no free will. I don't go quite that far, but I think it is very limited.

[Pops]

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'S')tupidity, but more likely an over abundance of neurosis.

In my career I've noticed that many organizations of sufficient size have some real asshole in a position of authority. Every one knows he's an ah, everyone talks about him, but there he is.

That got me thinking that if it is such a consistent phenomena then it likely serves some community function. Why would it be different here? Perhaps we have difficult people because others need them and encourage them in being difficult? Why is it soooo hard to not feed the trolls?

But back to the original question, I think any answer is far too simple. Yes there are big and detailed biases. But I think we all argue very much out of our personal experience and wishful thinking.

None of us are as logical as we would like to be. There are some scientist who argue we have no free will. I don't go quite that far, but I think it is very limited.