| Mabi |
Posted
on 01-Nov-00 01:29 PM
>So, as a citizen who wants to participate in public >debates, how do you decide which arguments
>are valid and which are not?
>You just have to find one counterexample to the >argument being made. If you can do this than you have >an invalid argument.
hhh,
You are absolutely right.
It's like reading a scientific paper....The question of validity and trustworthiness. After reading the logics and fundamentals behind each postings and if you can translate those into practices with fewer negative consequences than the current trend, then it should be considered as a valid reasoning/finding.
The decision again is totally yours.
The discussions that go on this site or any site may not have any significant effect on the "real issue".
The discussions are usually on hapazard topics and abruptly ends without any kind of warning. Many a times, it becomes heated "word war", having difficulty to reach a conclusion.
It can be a mere satisfaction for the participants thrashing one another with the logics and statements, giving a false sense of winning and have a good nights sleep. However, the presentations may convince a reader but divert away from the facts and contributing little or "nothing" to the real issue.
My suggestion is to have a sort of panel of specialists in the related field to come (or request them for their expert opinion about the discussions going on) and participate in the debate so that non-participants (in writing) can have some definitive answers on the subjects.
OR,
Search for some neutral and unbiased readers and writers (I think, a journalist would do a better job)to summarize the discussion and even publish in some newspaper. This also might attract more people to participate.
OR,
Have a list of topics of varied interest for debate and set a kind of chat.
My two cents in an attempt to make the discussions in this site more as constructive, fruitful and useful suggestions.
Regards,
Mabi
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 01-Nov-00 10:11 PM
>The discussions that go on this site or any
>site may not have any significant effect on
>the "real issue".
Mabi, You seem to have divided up your time
between what you really do and what you do on
the side on the Web site. That may be fine for
your purpose.
But none of us lives split lives.
Ideas obtained in "the real world" can be posted
on this Web site, and ideas obtained from this Web
site can be taken to "the real world". I think
that the process is interconnected and
interlinked.
At least, this process of
seamless interconnection and interlinakge
has worked quite fine for me, as evidenced
by the motivaion to write that logic primer
in nepali bhasa.
>The discussions are usually on hapazard
>topics and abruptly ends without any kind of
>warning.
This is fine.
This is to be expected and
tolerated because this Web site is an OPEN
system; NOT a closed system.
If this were a password-protected Web site of ONLY,
say, Java programmers, then the likelihood of one'
getting not so "haphazard" and not so "abruptly
ending" discussions would be higher.
But, like I said, this is an open system.
The quality of discussions is dependent
upon the caliber of people posting
stuff.
>Many a times, it becomes heated "
>word war", having difficulty to reach a
>conclusion.
This is fine too.
This is the nature of an OPEN system -- just
like in a democracy, where there are competing and conflicting interests, each clamoring for
attention.
Many issues are OPEN-ended, and have no definite,
neat, well-packaged conclusions. It's fine
if posters fail to reach conclusions on many
issues. The process of debates/discussions
itself often shows that there are more conclusions,
multiple ways of viewing an issue than
everybody marching ahead to one bif conclusion.
>It can be a mere satisfaction for the
>participants thrashing one another with the
>logics and statements, giving a false sense
>of winning and have a good nights sleep.
If I were you, I wouldn't pre-judge
the motivation of others to post their stuff.
People post for a variety of reasons. Some
people post for ego-satisfacion; some
for knowledge-generation; some for
god-knows-what reasons. And, I think,
all these reasons are VALID and fine.
But as long as posters, using their own names,
are NOT out to exercise practices that are not tolerated in the real world (such as racism, sexism, etc), then anybody is free to post whatever
s/he can.
>However, the presentations may convince a
>reader but divert away from the facts and
>contributing little or "nothing" to the real
>issue.
I think you are underestimating the readers'
intelligence. You can't convince a reader
by "diverting away from the facts and
contributing little or "nothing" to the real
issue".
Readers, silent or vocal, are smart enough
to detect bullshit when they see it.
>My suggestion is to have a sort of panel of
>specialists in the related field to come (or
>request them for their expert opinion about
>the discussions going on) and participate in
>the debate so that non-participants (in
>writing) can have some definitive answers on
>the subjects.
Again, this is possible ONLY in a CLOSED system,
which this Web site is not.
Stil, some efforts have been made:
I have invited Martin Chautari's people
to post their stuff on Safa tempo (they
are in the process of doing so); Adam
of Lotus Energy has joined in, and so
on and on.
I personall think that learning from
one's peers is the best form of
learning. This Web site brings the
peers together -- and that's good and
fine in itself.
Jst my thoughts, feel free to disagree.
oohi
ashu
|
