RandomPoster
Platinum Member
- May 22, 2017
- 2,584
- 1,793
- 970
People that give you reasons instead of evidence are like people who give you problems instead of answers. They make a claim and tell you why they think it would be true, except don't give you much for evidence. The evidence is all that matters. Any reason that can not stand as evidence is not much of a reason at all.
I look at it this way. Your base argument is the only thing that should be immune to being dismissed as mere speculation. It gets a certain protection that none of your other statements get. Attacking someone's base argument as mere speculation doesn't really make much sense because that is the whole point in having the discussion. The reason I bring this up is because I often see people that don't give you evidence, they give you reasons which we often do not treat with the same level of scrutiny as evidence. They go on and on and on about the why and throw in a little anecdotal evidence to top it off.
Let's look at an example of this type of thinking:
• Making cultural diversity courses mandatory would reduce the number of hate crimes [claim] because it would result in a more enlightened and tolerant society [hypothetical reason] and here is an anecdotal example of someone who changed their worldview after taking a cultural diversity course for evidence.
This is how the "Claims, Reason, Evidence" paradigm is often implemented and that implementation is garbage.
Have you ever been faced with an argument like that and been asked for a critique? Notice how they are shifting the burden of proof onto skeptics rather than proponents of the claim. If so, you likely stood there like a deer in headlights, thought for a few seconds and wanted to scream in their face "YOU'RE ******* GUESSING!".
The "reason" provided in many of these cases is merely another claim that you simply made up. Claim A is "backed up" by claim B. Your reason is actually an entirely different argument altogether that you, again, simply made up. It is an attempt to sneak hypothetical evidence into the discussion as an argument and act like you actually said something rather than simply killing the entire conversation. You hypothesize that making cultural diversity courses mandatory would reduce the number of hate crimes BECAUSE YOU HYPOTHESIZE that it would result in a more enlightened society and you further hypothesize that this in turn would result in fewer hate crimes. You are attempting to use an unproven theorem in a mathematical proof. In other words, your only evidence is speculation and a cherry-picked anecdote. That is called guessing.
Any reason that can not also function as evidence is no reason at all. It does not have the immunity that a base argument gets. This does not mean it is wrong, simply that it must be acknowledged as speculation. I am often tempted to respond by saying f*** your reasons, show me your evidence. The evidence is the reason and the reason is the evidence. The only valid reason possible is evidence.
Opinion based reasons can also be used as an easy cop out when faced with evidence you don't like. You predicted a team would win the World Series and they lost. The most common response is to hop onto the rationalization train where you emphatically state that it is a fact that X is the one and only reason why they lost. After all, it's only anyone else's opinion that it's not. If you give any reason other than the other team won more games than they did, you are stating an opinion that could be argued for eternity rather than you simply being wrong. Arguing the whys and the wherefores often maneuvers the conversation into a non-testable area, makes it all about attitude and can be used as a form of rescue. It changes the subject and is not typically constructive. In the real world, there is black and white. There is right and wrong. There is fact and opinion. There is true, false, and unknown with degrees of likelihood that we can only approximate or guess at. There is nothing else ever, only more evidence waiting to be found.
Here is an example that I believe is a more appropriate use of hypothesis, reasoning, and evidence.
Getting shot will increase your likelihood of getting a staph infection [hypothesis] because gunshot victims are more likely to be taken to a hospital and it has been proven that people in hospitals actually do get staph infections at a higher rate than the overall population. Notice how every reason given can double as evidence. I did not have to say that I think gunshot victims would hypothetically be more likely to taken to hospitals or that hospital patients would hypothetically be more likely to get staph infections.
It's easy to argue with opinion based reasons and hard to argue against them in exactly the same way that it's easy to argue with opinions overall and hard to argue against them. It's easy to argue with hypothetical evidence and hard to argue against it.
Our educational system is teaching people to be less dismissive of anecdotal and hypothetical evidence. They are teaching people to rationalize away actual empirical data by squabbling over the reason or reasons that may or may not actually explain why the data says what it says, as opposed to being limited to responding to empirical data only with empirical data. They are teaching people to draw less of a distinction between fact and opinion and to refuse to remove emotion from the equation. This is madness. In Sociology class, we talked about ideas and why we believed them and then we stopped. We never even got started. We were not sent out on a scavenger hunt for evidence and counter-evidence. I was actually told by an instructor that different fields of study often require different approaches to problem solving. My reply is "NO! NEVER!"
The most reliable measurement of the value of one's opinion is and always will be an overall assessment of the technical proficiency, evidentiary content and persuasive eloquence with which one is capable of pontificating on the topic at hand in the absence of disruptive behavior. This is how an exchange of ideas is supposed to work. Each side smiles, shakes hands and then privately goes off on a fanatically obsessed scavenger hunt for evidence. They compile and organize their evidence into a well crafted sledgehammer with which to bludgeon their opponents as they bury them under an avalanche of facts, charts, as well as simple and straightforward statistics. They then work the evidence into the most eloquent speech they are capable of writing in order to politely and dispassionately smother their opponent. They take turns talking, they never interrupt, they never raise their voices, and they never express emotion. When the exchange is fair like an honorable duel in a John Wayne movie or schoolboys meeting after school to put up their dukes and fight like men the way they were taught to, the side that put the majority of their passion and hard work into building their argument, as opposed to simply peddling it with cheap theatrics, will always succeed. The side that can build the most magnificent sand castle, as opposed to sneaking over and sabotaging the other team's before they can put the stabilizing parts in, will come out on top and better sand castles will be built. I see us moving away from this type of debate and it makes no sense. This is the type of civility that civilization is built on.
The most technologically advanced civilization must be doing things right or they wouldn't be the most technologically advanced and have the most powerful economy and military. Like I said, the reason is the evidence and the evidence is the reason.
I look at it this way. Your base argument is the only thing that should be immune to being dismissed as mere speculation. It gets a certain protection that none of your other statements get. Attacking someone's base argument as mere speculation doesn't really make much sense because that is the whole point in having the discussion. The reason I bring this up is because I often see people that don't give you evidence, they give you reasons which we often do not treat with the same level of scrutiny as evidence. They go on and on and on about the why and throw in a little anecdotal evidence to top it off.
Let's look at an example of this type of thinking:
• Making cultural diversity courses mandatory would reduce the number of hate crimes [claim] because it would result in a more enlightened and tolerant society [hypothetical reason] and here is an anecdotal example of someone who changed their worldview after taking a cultural diversity course for evidence.
This is how the "Claims, Reason, Evidence" paradigm is often implemented and that implementation is garbage.
Have you ever been faced with an argument like that and been asked for a critique? Notice how they are shifting the burden of proof onto skeptics rather than proponents of the claim. If so, you likely stood there like a deer in headlights, thought for a few seconds and wanted to scream in their face "YOU'RE ******* GUESSING!".
The "reason" provided in many of these cases is merely another claim that you simply made up. Claim A is "backed up" by claim B. Your reason is actually an entirely different argument altogether that you, again, simply made up. It is an attempt to sneak hypothetical evidence into the discussion as an argument and act like you actually said something rather than simply killing the entire conversation. You hypothesize that making cultural diversity courses mandatory would reduce the number of hate crimes BECAUSE YOU HYPOTHESIZE that it would result in a more enlightened society and you further hypothesize that this in turn would result in fewer hate crimes. You are attempting to use an unproven theorem in a mathematical proof. In other words, your only evidence is speculation and a cherry-picked anecdote. That is called guessing.
Any reason that can not also function as evidence is no reason at all. It does not have the immunity that a base argument gets. This does not mean it is wrong, simply that it must be acknowledged as speculation. I am often tempted to respond by saying f*** your reasons, show me your evidence. The evidence is the reason and the reason is the evidence. The only valid reason possible is evidence.
Opinion based reasons can also be used as an easy cop out when faced with evidence you don't like. You predicted a team would win the World Series and they lost. The most common response is to hop onto the rationalization train where you emphatically state that it is a fact that X is the one and only reason why they lost. After all, it's only anyone else's opinion that it's not. If you give any reason other than the other team won more games than they did, you are stating an opinion that could be argued for eternity rather than you simply being wrong. Arguing the whys and the wherefores often maneuvers the conversation into a non-testable area, makes it all about attitude and can be used as a form of rescue. It changes the subject and is not typically constructive. In the real world, there is black and white. There is right and wrong. There is fact and opinion. There is true, false, and unknown with degrees of likelihood that we can only approximate or guess at. There is nothing else ever, only more evidence waiting to be found.
Here is an example that I believe is a more appropriate use of hypothesis, reasoning, and evidence.
Getting shot will increase your likelihood of getting a staph infection [hypothesis] because gunshot victims are more likely to be taken to a hospital and it has been proven that people in hospitals actually do get staph infections at a higher rate than the overall population. Notice how every reason given can double as evidence. I did not have to say that I think gunshot victims would hypothetically be more likely to taken to hospitals or that hospital patients would hypothetically be more likely to get staph infections.
It's easy to argue with opinion based reasons and hard to argue against them in exactly the same way that it's easy to argue with opinions overall and hard to argue against them. It's easy to argue with hypothetical evidence and hard to argue against it.
Our educational system is teaching people to be less dismissive of anecdotal and hypothetical evidence. They are teaching people to rationalize away actual empirical data by squabbling over the reason or reasons that may or may not actually explain why the data says what it says, as opposed to being limited to responding to empirical data only with empirical data. They are teaching people to draw less of a distinction between fact and opinion and to refuse to remove emotion from the equation. This is madness. In Sociology class, we talked about ideas and why we believed them and then we stopped. We never even got started. We were not sent out on a scavenger hunt for evidence and counter-evidence. I was actually told by an instructor that different fields of study often require different approaches to problem solving. My reply is "NO! NEVER!"
The most reliable measurement of the value of one's opinion is and always will be an overall assessment of the technical proficiency, evidentiary content and persuasive eloquence with which one is capable of pontificating on the topic at hand in the absence of disruptive behavior. This is how an exchange of ideas is supposed to work. Each side smiles, shakes hands and then privately goes off on a fanatically obsessed scavenger hunt for evidence. They compile and organize their evidence into a well crafted sledgehammer with which to bludgeon their opponents as they bury them under an avalanche of facts, charts, as well as simple and straightforward statistics. They then work the evidence into the most eloquent speech they are capable of writing in order to politely and dispassionately smother their opponent. They take turns talking, they never interrupt, they never raise their voices, and they never express emotion. When the exchange is fair like an honorable duel in a John Wayne movie or schoolboys meeting after school to put up their dukes and fight like men the way they were taught to, the side that put the majority of their passion and hard work into building their argument, as opposed to simply peddling it with cheap theatrics, will always succeed. The side that can build the most magnificent sand castle, as opposed to sneaking over and sabotaging the other team's before they can put the stabilizing parts in, will come out on top and better sand castles will be built. I see us moving away from this type of debate and it makes no sense. This is the type of civility that civilization is built on.
The most technologically advanced civilization must be doing things right or they wouldn't be the most technologically advanced and have the most powerful economy and military. Like I said, the reason is the evidence and the evidence is the reason.
Last edited:
