WHAT CAN WE DO?
When you are Faced with TWO DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSING VIEWS IN A DEBATE CONCERNING THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, WHICH BY DEFINITION MUST INCLUDE NATURAL LAW AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, HERE ARE SOME WAYS TO JUDGE THE QUALITY OF THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED:
- MAKE SURE THEY ARE VALIDLY CONSTRUCTED. IF NOT, POINT IT OUT, AND ASK WHY?
- ARE ALL PREMISES FACTUAL IN CONTENT, OR ARE THEY ASSUMPTIONS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN PROVEN TO BE TRUE?
- ALL STATISTICS MUST BE SOURCED PROPERLY, WHICH INCLUDES METHODOLOGY.
If these Three Conditions cannot, or will not, be Satisfied to the agreement of each side, then you Won't have a Debate, or a Discussion that will Yield Meaningful Information. Discerning or Finding Truth is not aided by Tactics Designed to Mask Deceive, or Avoid Answering Valid and Evidentiary Questions.
APART FROM ABOVE, HERE ARE SOME OTHER TECHNIQUES THAT COULD HELP TO IDENTIFY WHICH OPINIONS ARE GROUNDED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, AND THOSE THAT ARE LITTLE MORE THAN SMOKE AND MIRRORS.
- ASK BOTH SIDES TO PRESENT THE THREE STRONGEST POINTS THAT SUPPORT THEIR OPINIONS OR CONCLUSIONS.
THEN EVALUATE EACH POINT ON ITS OWN, TO SEE IF THEY STAND ON THEIR OWN MERITS, OR ARE DEPENDENT ON THE OTHER(S).
- GIVEN WHAT CAN BE REASONABLY KNOWN ABOUT THE SUBJECT MATTER THAT IS NOT UNDER CONTENTION, HOW DO THE CONCLUSIONS
THEY ARE ASSERTING FIT WITH ESTABLISHED FACTS?
- WHAT MISTAKES THE OPPOSITION HAS MADE IN THEIR ANALYSIS, AND HOW CAN THEY BE CORRECTED?
FINALLY, THE MOMENT OF TRUTH.
ASK EACH THE FOLLOWING:
IF IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT THE ARGUMENT(S) YOU ARE MAKING ARE INVALID, OR NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, WOULD IT MAKE YOU RECONSIDER YOUR POSITION?
IF NOT,
WHAT TYPE OF ARGUMENT, OR FORM OF EVIDENCE, WOULD YOU ACCEPT AS INDICATIVE THAT YOUR CONCLUSION OR OPINION IS UNFOUNDED, AND THAT THE OPPOSITION IS CORRECT?
TRUE SCIENTISTS WOULD NOT BE AFRAID OF THESE QUESTIONS. IF THEIR POSITION IS REASONABLE, AND PROPERLY CONSTRUCTED, SUCH INQUIRIES WOULD BE WELCOME.
No comments:
Post a Comment