This site only wants cozy chat, not philosophy!

HexHammer · Post by **HexHammer** » March 13th, 2012, 8:29 am

Philosophy are based on logic and reason, which are based on science, not outdated philosophers. Without modern science we produce nonsens and babble, many uses the excuse that science is fallible, which it indeed is, then babbles on, but the majority of science is very sound and should be heeded, not totally disregarded!

I have actually tried to encourage people to read up on physics, psychology and neurology, but only recived a warning for that, which leaves me with the idea that this site prevents people from enlighten discussions, but encourage glaring ignorence, thus a cozy chat, not philosophy.

March 14th, 2012, 8:41 am

Telling someone to go research something isn't philosophy and isn't productive debate. At best, it's simply off-topic. More likely, it's an insulting insinuation that the person is ignorant and an ad hominem fallacy.

The rules regarding being on-topic, particularly when it comes to personal attacks and ad hominem fallacies, are there precisely to avoid cozy chat and be conducive to on-topic productive debate void of off-topic blabbering, personal attacks and flame wars.

HexHammer · Post by **HexHammer** » March 14th, 2012, 9:05 am

Scott wrote:Telling someone to go research something isn't philosophy and isn't productive debate. At best, it's simply off-topic. More likely, it's an insulting insinuation that the person is ignorant and an ad hominem fallacy.

The rules regarding being on-topic, particularly when it comes to personal attacks and ad hominem fallacies, are there precisely to avoid cozy chat and be conducive to on-topic productive debate void of off-topic blabbering, personal attacks and flame wars.

You speak of "productive debate" how excatly is debating with a glaring ignorent, causeing any productivity? Would you have some glaring ignorent dude to do complicated surgery on your child? ..no?

You would like an actual surgeon with an education, and best with lots of experience. Ignorence will only produce counterproductiveness, everything elese is baffeling.

March 14th, 2012, 9:31 am

HexHammer,

First of all, I did not say that debating with someone who is glaringly ignorant is productive. What I am saying is that calling the other person in an alleged philosophical debate ignorant either directly or through implication via off-topic remarks -- or for that matter any personal attacks or intentional ad hominem arguments -- is unproductive. (Incidentally, I find this kind of behavior more common among the ignorant themselves than those with both a decent general education and an above average knowledge of the topic being discussed; I assume because the ignorant person becomes frustrated and has nothing productive to say so resorts to name-calling, and in the void of actually being able to make a compelling case rudely tells the other person to go research.) If you think you cannot engage in a productive discussion with someone on the forums because you think they are glaringly ignorant, we have a 'friends and foes' feature that you can use to add the person as a 'foe' which will hide their posts from you. To do this, simply click the 'manage foes' link on the left sidebar of the 'friends and foes' tab of the 'user control panel' for which there is a link in the header of the forums, i.e. at the top on every page of the forums when logged in.

Incidentally, I think your analogy of a surgeon is a non-sequitur, and I personally find there are many ways debate with someone who is ignorant about much of the topic being debated can be productive. For one thing, a lot of philosophy happens in logical form and one needs no knowledge about the items being logically analyzed to critique the structure and validity of the argument itself. Moreover, I can only suspect someone is ignorant in a relevant way if I have the knowledge of which I think they are void. Part of the process of productive debate is establishing one' premises well. This means I provide the knowledge I want the other person to know for us to have a productive debate. If the population of China is crucial to my argument and I feel I can't have a productive debate with someone who is ignorant of the population of China, then I simply start my argument by saying what the population of China is with a link to a credible source; Now everyone who reads my argument is no longer ignorant of that fact.

March 15th, 2012, 11:55 am

I have locked this topic because it no longer appears to be providing any feedback to me about the site. I will take any suggestions that have been made into consideration. Anyone who wishes to continue to debate the various topics raised in accordance with the forum rules is welcome to do so in one of the on-topic forums.

Thanks, Scott

-- Updated 29 Mar 2012 12:07 pm to add the following --

I have also deleted all the posts besides the original feedback from the original poster and my responses to that.