Proof is evil

TemplarTemplar You first.
edited October 2003 in The Pub
So I got caught in a couple of crossfire debates in the last three days and something just hit me out of the blue.

You know if we took Proof away from every argument, it would solve a whole mess of problems? Think about it. You ask someone for proof, and what does that actually prove? It shows the person has a good source and that he proved you wrong. Ok, that might be good for a goodnatured, pointless debate, but it's rather unconstructive, if you think about it.

So imagine for a second that you cannot ask for proof in an argument, and instead ask for understanding. The person will understand a concept a lot more if you make him understand how various topics are connected. If you understand something to the point that it seems totally logical and possible, how can you argue against that? (And by "totally", I mean TOTALLY. That's a funny word if you keep saying it ;D ). If it's totally logical and possible, why is there any other answer? You turn one of the most unconstructive items of speech (arguments) into something constructive. Both you and the other person walk away knowing a lot more than just a reference in a book by some author.

...

:eek3: Work did it! :eek3: :D

Comments

  • botheredbothered Manchester UK
    edited October 2003
    Templar had this to say
    So imagine for a second that you cannot ask for proof in an argument, and instead ask for understanding. The person will understand a concept a lot more if you make him understand how various topics are connected. If you understand something to the point that it seems totally logical and possible, how can you argue against that? (And by "totally", I mean TOTALLY. That's a funny word if you keep saying it ;D ). If it's totally logical and possible, why is there any other answer? You turn one of the most unconstructive items of speech (arguments) into something constructive. Both you and the other person walk away knowing a lot more than just a reference in a book by some author.

    ...



    I made the same point to my boss, He said "prove it"

    bothered.:banghead:
  • ClutchClutch North Carolina
    edited October 2003
    lol@Bothered


    I guess it is just the nature of most people. I mean if you have a debate with someone and you ask them for proof or vice versa, once you "prove" them wrong it ends. But if you strive for knowledge then you will search further for how the answer was gotten to and actually go into detail as to why it is actually proof. The proof is in the pudding :)
  • ThraxThrax Professional Shill, Watch Slut, Mumble Hivemind Drone Austin, TX
    edited October 2003
    Learning does not equate to understanding.

    I can give you all the facts and "Prove" it to you. But there are morons out there who will never understand, or will call every source you have "Possibly fallacious." Wherein they're idiots and need to be punched in the face. :skeptic:

    //EDIT: Damn that was a fast S-M byte. :wtf:
  • CBCB Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Der Millionendorf-
    edited October 2003
    'Forcing understanding' is an age old practice of arguement, and I agree that is is better than citing sources. Plato was one of the first to use the method and it works this way:

    1. You tell the person your point.
    2. You ask them a relivant question that there is only one answer to, and force them to answer.
    3. repeat step two as many times as nesicary.
    4. Use the points that they already agreed to in the last two steps to construct a flawless argument, that they must agree with, because they already agreed with with all of the components of that arguement.

    Plato does it alot in the "The Republic". If I could find my copy of it, I'd give you an example.
  • TemplarTemplar You first.
    edited October 2003
    CBDroege had this to say
    'Forcing understanding' is an age old practice of arguement, and I agree that is is better than citing sources. Plato was one of the first to use the method and it works this way:

    1. You tell the person your point.
    2. You ask them a relivant question that there is only one answer to, and force them to answer.
    3. repeat step two as many times as nesicary.
    4. Use the points that they already agreed to in the last two steps to construct a flawless argument, that they must agree with, because they already agreed with with all of the components of that arguement.

    Plato does it alot in the "The Republic". If I could find my copy of it, I'd give you an example.

    I hate that :( Sure, it wins arguments, which can be good for your image or whatever, but it closes off the formation of original ideas and turns whatever argument you had into a quarrel :\ It's very useful when you just want to shut someone up :)

    I like the Theory of Absolutism. I'm right and you're wrong, now go away :D
  • edited October 2003
    I like Duke Nukem's form of debate. "It's time to kick ass or chew bubble gum, and I'm all outta gum!"

    A close second to that is an open forum where everyone is open minded. But since true open mindedness rarely ever happens, I guess Plato has it covered best!
  • CBCB Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Der Millionendorf-
    edited October 2003
    Templar had this to say

    I hate that :( Sure, it wins arguments, which can be good for your image or whatever, but it closes off the formation of original ideas and turns whatever argument you had into a quarrel :\ It's very useful when you just want to shut someone up :)

    I like the Theory of Absolutism. I'm right and you're wrong, now go away :D [/B]

    I don't think it's unfare, nor stifling. It's most useful as a way to find that you already agree with someone. I've often been in discussions against Guy, for example, when we suddenly relize that we'd been argueing the same point from different angles, or that through our argument we have come to a compromised agreement, and actually changed our feeling on the topic. We have to use this Platonic argument style to prove to ourselves that we do indeed agree.

    Although I guess it would be kind-of mean if you planned it out in advance to use against some one who vehemently disagrees with you, but sometimes an argument, while still being civil, is about forcing the other person to at least see how it is that you think you are right, even if you can't truely change their mind.

    Isn't that what you said that you liked?

    Most people have to be mentaly manhandled before they can truely see someone elses point of view.

    Although if you're used to doing it, and if your discussive partner is open minded, it can usually be done with more subtlety.

    (kind-of like right now.:) )
  • ThraxThrax Professional Shill, Watch Slut, Mumble Hivemind Drone Austin, TX
    edited October 2003
    That's actually Socratic reasoning, Plato learned it from Socrates.

    God it makes people look foolish when used right. ;D
  • TemplarTemplar You first.
    edited October 2003
    Although I guess it would be kind-of mean if you planned it out in advance to use against some one who vehemently disagrees with you, but sometimes an argument, while still being civil, is about forcing the other person to at least see how it is that you think you are right, even if you can't truely change their mind.

    Isn't that what you said that you liked?

    It's not a BAD method.. I just don't prefer it. I hate it when used against someone just to make them feel bad :(

    Showing someone why the bucket leaks water will do more good instead of telling the person the bucket is leaking water (There are holes here, here, and here and I recommend you use blahdeblah to plug them, opposed to saying "Hey, your bucket is leaking!")
  • CBCB Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Der Millionendorf-
    edited October 2003
    Thrax had this to say
    That's actually Socratic reasoning, Plato learned it from Socrates.

    God it makes people look foolish when used right. ;D

    Right, but there's the debate as to how much Socrates actually wrote. Plato uses Socrates as a character so much that some scholars beleive that, While Socrates probably really existed, and realy tought Plato some cool stuff, Plato actually wrote everything that is acredited to him....

    But, really that's neither here nor there. I just called the argument style Platonic because it was so prevalant in Plato's writting. Just the same as we call the story of Atlantis a Platonic concept despite knowing that he wasen't the first to write about it. He was however the clearest.

    The thing that matters is that I still can't find my copy of "The Republic". I was sure that it was right there on the shelf between the "Enchridion" and Gary Larson's "Weiner Dog Art". But, there is just a Republic sized hole there now, and the Epictetus's thin book leans against the other in a strange sort of irony.
  • edited October 2003
    Hahaha... would that "strange sort of irony" be Platonic Irony, by any chance? Maybe The Republic went the way of your GBA and Sega...?
  • CBCB Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Der Millionendorf-
    edited October 2003
    I don't think so. I probly took it out for reference, and forgot where I set it down... Besides I did finaly find mt GBA. It was in the Civic. Hopefuly, I'll find my Sega when I move or something.

    Another Irony is that I had dream last night that I got home from a shoot and my bed and the couch that your dad just gave me were both missing.
  • edited October 2003
    Good thing it was just a dream! That's gotta symbolize something though... noplace to lay/maybe you feel like you're running ragged/Freud says you got a thing for your mom...?
Sign In or Register to comment.