It's an extremely common tendency to try and justify ones position on any topic by seeking out those opponents who advance the most naive, the weakest and most ridiculous arguments. Or, when arguing with more thoughtful opponents, to attribute to them a more naive or simplistic position than the one they actually hold and attack that.
In addition it seems that people often appear to deliberately avoid clarity and revel in being abstruse. My suspicion is they do this in order to give the impression of winning the argument. In reality though their words convey little, if indeed, any meaning.
These tactics might rally those who subscribe to your view, but does precious little to justify your own position. What is needed is to seek out those opponents who provide the most challenging and sophisticated arguments, and to address those specific arguments. If you can outargue them and even make them appear to be foolish, then you'll have some confidence that your position might well be correct.
It is though very tempting to simply attack your weakest opponents. Or attack the weakest arguments against your position. Or to employ other underhanded strategies in order to "win". It's easy, requires little thought, makes you feel superior, and of course most importantly of all it garners support and admiration from those who share your sentiments and beliefs in the matter in hand.
I would like to thank the following people for having given me the motivation and inspiration to write the above words. Many of those who have left comments on my blog. Countless hundreds of people I have debated with on skeptic/materialist discussion boards over the years, and a special thanks goes to Paul Edwards who wrote the laughably entitled: "Reincarnation: A Critical Examination".
I thank you all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Whodunit
People constantly boast about anticipating the "big reveals" or "whodunnits" in novels and films. But, these big reveals...
-
Just reading the following article: 20 years ago, we were all set for a Y2K disaster that wasn’t Article says: Patti Duncan stockpiled ...
-
Many philosophers and scientists have some truly bizarre beliefs. The denial of consciousness (as we understand this term) is the most bizar...
-
I read this article. * The parents of a boy claims their boy appears to remember being Princess Diana in a former life. It's also cov...
-
Ugh . . I had an important email that someone had sent me, so I foolishly imagined that selecting the archive option would ensure I don'...
-
According to this article Greenland is the country with the world's highest suicide rate. From 1900-1930 Greenland had a suicide rate ...
-
All aspects of consciousness -- whether pains, perceptual experiences, thoughts and so on -- can be changed, attenuated, modulated, even ...
-
So Liz Truss has announced her resignation as PM. The shortest serving PM ever -- just 44 days as PM. And something I predicted before sh...
-
There's 2 possibilities: a) This is the only life there is. When we die we simply cease to exist. Our lives and the Universe are, in a...
-
I was just thinking. Suppose we could go into the future exactly 1 million years from now. What would we see? I would speculate that our t...
-
I'm reading a lot in the past couple of days essentially saying that people are being irrational for being afraid to use fully autonomou...
No comments:
Post a Comment