http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: How to disagree en Mon, 01 Jun 2026 06:12:20 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12361&page=2#post-145057 Mon, 10 Mar 2014 19:42:28 +0000 gembo 145057@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I hope so much there is an American called Loon Quine.</p> <p>You could read word and object or indeed Ontological relativity by WV Quine but instead I would recommend Sunset Song by Lewis Grassic Gibbon which is very funky. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12361&page=2#post-145024 Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:39:26 +0000 Dave 145024@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>This is a stand-out topic in terms of CCE quirkiness, and that's saying something. I get the impression I'm supposed to have read something else before I'll really get the point of this.</p> <p>However, I feel challenged to try and refute the central point: <em>"If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier. Most people don't really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can't help it."</em></p> <p>Really? Is there really a convincing argument that "being mean" makes people <em>unhappy</em>? </p> <p>Go to look at the EEN comments and ask whether you see people getting less and less happy as they stick their racist / velophobic / whatever commentary into the public domain? I don't think so. </p> <p>I think meanness might make *other people* unhappy, pretty much by definition, but it certainly isn't going to make the perpetrators unhappy.</p> <p>Assuming classifying casual conversation according to a formal taxonomy doesn't make people happy, since it has no other benefit to them as individuals, according to my counter-argument we shouldn't expect to see that much of this hierarchy stuff (and indeed we don't). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12361&page=2#post-144989 Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:18:22 +0000 I were right about that saddle 144989@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Fit like 'i day Quine? Aye chavin' on yer semantics? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12361&page=2#post-144980 Mon, 10 Mar 2014 10:36:29 +0000 Min 144980@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>That is an embarrassing last name for a man where I come from anyway. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12361#post-144954 Sun, 09 Mar 2014 21:34:00 +0000 gembo 144954@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Ah, no I am not on first name terms with Willard Quine. I had to use his first name to get my apocalypse now quote in.</p> <p>Willard can orman Quine is also very deceased.</p> <p>Liked look of kenyersel </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12361#post-144949 Sun, 09 Mar 2014 19:21:59 +0000 algo 144949@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I regret I know very little of Quine - but thanks for the brief intro. Can I interject the following excellent Edinburgh based project, borne out of work by a logician and a cognitive scientist - </p> <p><a href="http://www.kenyersel.org">http://www.kenyersel.org</a></p> <p>the sessions I saw of these were really quite illuminating </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12361#post-144948 Sun, 09 Mar 2014 19:10:56 +0000 I were right about that saddle 144948@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>First name terms, eh? We don't want this thread to descend into informal semantics. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12361#post-144947 Sun, 09 Mar 2014 19:05:43 +0000 gembo 144947@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Willard Quine! now there is someone I would call a formal semanticist.</p> <p>also</p> <p>do you think of my methods are unsound Willard?</p> <p>I don't see any method at all </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12361#post-144945 Sun, 09 Mar 2014 18:49:25 +0000 chdot 144945@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Excuses. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12361#post-144944 Sun, 09 Mar 2014 18:48:12 +0000 I were right about that saddle 144944@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I meant to write 'hapless librarians', but ABEND<br /> U0002.HourGlass could not load the AGGFRONT module. Look for other error messages that may indicate why the load failed.<br /> SQL State 8001<br /> Rollback </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12361#post-144943 Sun, 09 Mar 2014 18:37:06 +0000 chdot 144943@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"hopelessly contrarian"</p> <p>I have to disagree. </p> <p>You mean hopefully contrarian. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12361#post-144938 Sun, 09 Mar 2014 17:55:49 +0000 I were right about that saddle 144938@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>My word. What a gem. I do love the idea that the CCE community requires lessons on how to disagree, given that it's always struck me as being utterly erudite, unfailingly polite(ish) and hopelessly contrarian. </p> <p>May I chip in here by reminding you that the concept of refutation (necessary to point six of your disagreement hierarchy) was put in serious doubt (though not, for reasons that become clear after a moment's thought, refuted) by Quine's restatement of Duhesme's hypothesis. In formal logic, we have a hypothesis H that requires an observation O;</p> <p>H -&gt; O</p> <p>the contrary observation ~O is made and we can conclude the hypothesis to be false;</p> <p>H -&gt; O<br /> ~O<br /> -------<br /> ~H</p> <p>For example, the proposition 'all swans are white' is refuted by the observation of a black swan. Problem is in the real world we can only test the complex of <em>all</em> hypotheses held, primary and auxilliary. Let A be the complex of auxilliary hypotheses supporting H;</p> <p>A.H -&gt; O<br /> ~O<br /> --------<br /> ~H or ~A or (~H and ~O)</p> <p>So for example if H is again the hypothesis that all swans are white, A might have a component hypothesis that all aquatic birds larger than geese are swans. Now if we see a 'black swan' we can conclude that either not all swans are white or that what we are seeing isn't a swan, both with equal validity. We are forced to fall back on rhetoric, because refutation of a single hypothesis is logically impossible through observation: "Of course it's a swan, you dolt!" or "Crikey, what a huge black duck!". </p> <p>Rhetoric, if you need reminded, is the art of persuasion, separate from logic. It is generally regarded as vital in all human discourse, and, requiring as it does a degree of insight and empathy, it is the hardest part to program into a chatbot. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12361#post-144926 Sun, 09 Mar 2014 15:35:34 +0000 Morningsider 144926@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Simon - really, a quote from that old publicity hound Chuck Schumer! You do realise this quote is from a speech that was a thinly veiled attack on the Bloomberg administration, New York conservation bodies and environmentalists. The very people responsible for the Green Light for Midtown project (Times Square, New York) that you are so fond of praising.</p> <p>You can see it here: </p> <p><a href="http://www.schumer.senate.gov/Newsroom/record.cfm?id=260837" rel="nofollow">http://www.schumer.senate.gov/Newsroom/record.cfm?id=260837</a></p> <p>Unusually for a US Senator, Chuck is a cyclist - but seems to be opposed to the development of (you guessed it) a cycle network:</p> <p><a href="http://nypost.com/2011/02/06/not-in-chucks-back-yard/" rel="nofollow">http://nypost.com/2011/02/06/not-in-chucks-back-yard/</a></p> <p>I find your use of all these quotes quite odd. The vast majority were originally made with no thought of cycling. Are you hoping that the eminent names attached to them lend weight to an argument? I say - have the courage of your convictions, stick to your own words. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12361#post-144918 Sun, 09 Mar 2014 14:04:33 +0000 Simon Parker 144918@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>... couldn't see past an awful lot of words seemingly claiming everything would just happen if it were written down as such ...</em></p> <p>Nobody claimed "everything would just happen", Focus. </p> <p>Thanks for taking the time to engage in the debate.</p> <p><em>A culture of inertia has set in. Criticism predominates over construction; critics are given more weight than those trying to build. It doesn't matter how small a constituency or flawed an argument the critic possesses. He or she always seems to predominate in political circles, in the news media, and in the public debate. - Senator Charles E. Schumer</em> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12361#post-144885 Sun, 09 Mar 2014 02:04:51 +0000 Focus 144885@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>That is the most incredibly long-winded way to go into a huff that I have ever seen :-o</p> <p>I did read the first few posts of the Network thread but couldn't see past an awful lot of words seemingly claiming everything would just happen if it were written down as such. What seemed like a positive idea ended up resembling a political party's manifesto which you always know will only partially come to fruition as described. So glad I never posted in that thread. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12361#post-144864 Sat, 08 Mar 2014 17:43:27 +0000 Morningsider 144864@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Simon - I must apologise that CCE, and myself in particular, have been unable to provide the level of criticism that you have clearly become accustomed to in the literary/cycling salons of London. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12361#post-144802 Sat, 08 Mar 2014 02:06:18 +0000 allebong 144802@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R6_Chr2vro" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R6_Chr2vro</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12361#post-144799 Sat, 08 Mar 2014 00:49:29 +0000 Instography 144799@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Your source talks about disagreement as though that were the point when actually, the point is either to convince the opponent, convince someone else (the lurker), silence the opponent (just wear them down) or be convinced (argue until your opponent comes up with a convincing counter-argument or gives up).</p> <p>Of course, if you don't know the mind of the two sides you have to resort to classifying on the basis of the surface appearance of the disagreement without understanding why they're disagreeing or what they hope to achieve by it. </p> <p>That was an example of another missing type of disagreement - moving the goalposts - not refuting the central point but arguing that something else is the central point. You'd do better with <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Art-Always-Being-Right/dp/1906142246/ref=pd_sim_b_4?ie=UTF8&amp;refRID=1CPDX6EVADGVGRSAG2K3">Schopenhauer</a>.</p> <p>* Laters. Damn that Crowriver - and a me for getting lost rereading it. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12361#post-144795 Fri, 07 Mar 2014 23:11:02 +0000 gembo 144795@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>See also Alexander Petrie,the only certified sane man in Glasgow who claimed to have a special silver cell in his brain which allowed him to Clinch every argument </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12361#post-144792 Fri, 07 Mar 2014 23:01:29 +0000 crowriver 144792@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Some will know this already but worth repeating here. Schopenhauer's 38 stratagems for winning arguments in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right">The Art Of Being Right</a> (1831).</p> <p>Covers them all. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12361#post-144788 Fri, 07 Mar 2014 22:37:47 +0000 wingpig 144788@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@wfb<br /> Yes for the apparently-successful-arguing-against-phantom-point side of things but it doesn't feel strong enough for the vaguely malicious misrepresentation aspect when the aim seems to be to generally discredit the opponent's reasoning ability, thought processes or logic, which is always more concerning than merely trying to kick a fair point under the carpet. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12361#post-144787 Fri, 07 Mar 2014 22:32:13 +0000 wee folding bike 144787@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>And while we're at it:</p> <p>Mr Barnard (shouting) What do you want?<br /> Man Well I was told outside ...<br /> Mr Barnard Don't give me that you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!<br /> Man What!<br /> Mr Barnard Shut your festering gob! Your type makes me puke! You vacuous toffee-nosed malodorous pervert!<br /> Man Look! I came here for an argument.</p> <p>If you need the rest of it: <a href="http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode29.htm#11" rel="nofollow">http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode29.htm#11</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12361#post-144786 Fri, 07 Mar 2014 22:24:27 +0000 crowriver 144786@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>People disagreeing online is nothing new. It's as old as USENET and e-mail lists, which go back to the 1980s (and BBS systems, which go back further but were not stricyly 'the internet'). </p> <p>Disagreeing in a disagreeable manner used to be called flaming. Flame wars start when people angrily disagree with each other.</p> <p>Trolling is when someone posts something deliberately provocative looking to incite a response or start a flame war. </p> <p>Spamming was and is posting unsolicited advertising, announcements or publicity to the group or list (Can also mean forwarding lengthy posts from elsewhere in their entirity or in part to the group/list rather than original content/personal comments).</p> <p>There used to be a thing called Netiquette back in the day which tried to set out 'rules' of being nice to each other online. Often ignored. Nowadays the soshul meedja generation are repeating many of the same mistakes made by earlier 'netizens' on USENET groups or e-mail lists.</p> <p>Big deal, get over it, nothing to see here. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12361#post-144784 Fri, 07 Mar 2014 22:21:35 +0000 wee folding bike 144784@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>wing, </p> <p>Straw man? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12361#post-144782 Fri, 07 Mar 2014 22:17:00 +0000 wingpig 144782@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><blockquote><em>"An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words."</em></blockquote></p> <p>Or forceful quotes, in some cases. Eric noted that technique when you argued with him and David Hembrow.</p> <p>I tend not to bother with other cycling forums due to their relative rudeness, but one method of argument-pretend-winning I have seen on here is the pretend-someone-said-something-they-never-said-then-rubbish-it, which is not covered in the excerpt above. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12361#post-144779 Fri, 07 Mar 2014 22:11:57 +0000 Arellcat 144779@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Is that refutation?</p> <p>(I did say 'sort of') :-/</p> <p>Edit: Maybe just me. I have deviant bikes to ride. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12361#post-144771 Fri, 07 Mar 2014 21:50:30 +0000 chdot 144771@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Who u calling unhinged?! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12361#post-144769 Fri, 07 Mar 2014 21:47:26 +0000 Arellcat 144769@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>the CCE sensibility (which is indefinable).</em></p> <p>It's a sort of educated unhingedness borne of familiarity and politeness. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12361#post-144768 Fri, 07 Mar 2014 21:26:28 +0000 Dougie 144768@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Pleased to have learned the expression tl;dr I will be using that one I think </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12361#post-144766 Fri, 07 Mar 2014 21:22:40 +0000 gembo 144766@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Always good to be able to calibrate the level of disagreement. Needs another parameter related to vehemence. Thus your disagreement could be at the top of the tree and refute the central point but the disagreement may be mild. Alternatively the disagreement could be at level of name calling and be very brutal. The latter would not be tolerated under our two rules. </p>