The day the ID died

[Alpha]

But that doesn't mean people that can write 8-10 page research reports in hours will end up being good at ID. Some themes (and some responses!) can be pretty intimidating.

Also...why it is that when I see the title of the topic, I get reminded of Chrono Trigger? Given that it's an attempt to revive and motivate ID, shouldn't the topic be renamed "the day the ID revived"?

I was more thinking along the lines of "The day the music died". I thought today that I perhaps should have made it "Show me your ID". Ahh, the art of witty thread titles.

OK, so some themes can be intimidating. Sure. But how do you respond to that? Stop making 'intimidating' threads?

@Soldier: Is your suggestion to use GC for the purpose of ID? Are you saying that ID is redundant, or just that if we want people to participate, we should allow people to "do GC" in an "ID topic"? (I have no idea what either of those things really are, but bare with me.)

All this talk of "constructive arguments" and so on... would it not just be redundant when we have people coming in and throwing some 4chan image into the debate?

At the end of the day, Soldier, ID and GC are functionally separate. They are not necessarily discrete, but you can't deny that the separation serves a purpose.

Or perhaps you weren't suggesting that. Clarification?

With respect to 'referencing'... An opinion doesn't need a reference, provided it's one's own. Given that most ID topics deal in perspective and normative positions, citations are useless unless quoting, or giving facts. Even then, you can't trust the Internet (so hyperlinks are redundant), and no one is actually going to check hard-copy references.

If I reference, I do it to acknowledges someone else's work. That's courtesy; the purpose is not academic. I just finished (yussssssss!!!) a 2000-word essay on urbanisation in the underdeveloped world, with 25 different publications cited. There is simply no need for that on the Internet.

While a citation isn't going to harm anyone, they seem more than a bit superfluous.

[Merlin]

If you start throwing statistics around, it is typically expected that you point out the source of your statistics. It is quite easy to make a statement such as "65% of TFFers are male". Where did that number come from?

Of course, I'd actually prefer if people didn't use statistics, because statistics can be biased if you take them out of context, misinterpret them, or the stats were done over an insufficient number/time, etc. It's too easy to say "The Blah College of Foo has reported in its study that box spring mattresses are radio transmitters". If you look closely, they only bothered to test a few hundred beds of identical size/shape and the study was sponsored by a Swedish company that makes foam beds. Clearly a biased study, but quite a lovely statistic if you are trying to argue that foam mattresses are better.

Also, I'd like to point out a section in ID rules:

...
Feel free to call people on their fallacies and point them to a link or quote them lines that say, "Hold it right there, you can't justify things that way!" Or you could paraphrase that.

To me, this encourages people to nitpick on other people's posts. Rather than look at what someone is trying to relay, they will be focused on trying to one-up their opponent on grammatical details. Explaining what fallacies are in the rules is fine, but encouraging this sort of behavior is not, IMHO. I believe a good arguer can easily disprove a fallacious statement without resorting to waving the "fallacy card" in someone's face.

For example:
Person 1: "This apple is red, therefore all apples are red."
Person 2: "On the contrary, Granny Smith apples are green."

Doesn't that sound better than this:
Person 2: "Uh... no. That's a proof by example fallacy. You're wrong!"

Just my take on it. ^_^

[che]

If you start throwing statistics around, it is typically expected that you point out the source of your statistics. It is quite easy to make a statement such as "65% of TFFers are male". Where did that number come from?

Of course, I'd actually prefer if people didn't use statistics, because statistics can be biased if you take them out of context, misinterpret them, or the stats were done over an insufficient number/time, etc. It's too easy to say "The Blah College of Foo has reported in its study that box spring mattresses are radio transmitters". If you look closely, they only bothered to test a few hundred beds of identical size/shape and the study was sponsored by a Swedish company that makes foam beds. Clearly a biased study, but quite a lovely statistic if you are trying to argue that foam mattresses are better.

Also, I'd like to point out a section in ID rules:


To me, this encourages people to nitpick on other people's posts. Rather than look at what someone is trying to relay, they will be focused on trying to one-up their opponent on grammatical details. Pointing out what fallacies are in the rules is fine, but encouraging this sort of behavior is not, IMHO.

This is exactly what I was talking about with constructive discussion in the first page of this thread. There are two ways people tend to point out that someone's facts may be inaccurate. The first is to quote every line in an entire paragraph that could be inaccurate because it was led-in with the false statistic, and waste everyone's time reading the quotes over again. The second is to quote the specific false information, post a source that proves that it is wrong, and tell them in a respectful way that you are not sure if that information is correct.

I'm okay with the second option. It's the nitpicking that really gets me. And people that get defensive about being wrong. It's okay to be wrong or slightly inaccurate in a discussion. Two heads are better than one type of deal. Those defensive people take the threads off into outer space and then from then on the good discussion is nonexistent.

And if you want to say "65% of TFFers are male" without going through the member list and tallying it up, you could say "I believe most TFFers are male" instead.

It's also important to note that not every discussion has to involve statistics.

And can we please stop calling it "Arguing". If you want to argue, go somewhere else. This is Intelligent Discussion we're talking about. Arguing is the enemy.

[Meier Link]

If you start throwing statistics around, it is typically expected that you point out the source of your statistics. It is quite easy to make a statement such as "65% of TFFers are male". Where did that number come from?

Of course, I'd actually prefer if people didn't use statistics, because statistics can be biased if you take them out of context, misinterpret them, or the stats were done over an insufficient number/time, etc. It's too easy to say "The Blah College of Foo has reported in its study that box spring mattresses are radio transmitters". If you look closely, they only bothered to test a few hundred beds of identical size/shape and the study was sponsored by a Swedish company that makes foam beds. Clearly a biased study, but quite a lovely statistic if you are trying to argue that foam mattresses are better.

Also, I'd like to point out a section in ID rules:


To me, this encourages people to nitpick on other people's posts. Rather than look at what someone is trying to relay, they will be focused on trying to one-up their opponent on grammatical details. Explaining what fallacies are in the rules is fine, but encouraging this sort of behavior is not, IMHO. I believe a good arguer can easily disprove a fallacious statement without resorting to waving the "fallacy card" in someone's face.

For example:
Person 1: "This apple is red, therefore all apples are red."
Person 2: "On the contrary, Granny Smith apples are green."

Doesn't that sound better than this:
Person 2: "Uh... no. That's a proof by example fallacy. You're wrong!"

Just my take on it. ^_^

If you found that to quote then you must of also read the harrasment rule:

Harassment:
There is no room here at TFF for harassment. In this section of the forum harassment will be met with an official warning.

Bickering, fighting, and name calling will be considered a minor variation of harassment and also will not be tolerated. Violations will be handled on a case by case basis. As stated previously this forum is for intellectual conversations, appropriate arguments, and debates; under no circumstances will any form of harassment be viewed as being intellectual.

Calling someone out on a fallacy is different then demeaning someones intelligence if you combine the fact that there is a harassment rule in place.
If someone truly thinks that their being harassed for being called out on a logical fallacy then they can always report the post.

Calling someone out legitimately and doing it in a respectful way is acceptable, if someone does it in a demeaning or disrespectful way is not.

[SOLDIER #819]

... ID is redundant... that if we want people to participate, we should allow people to "do GC" in an "ID topic"...

All this talk of "constructive arguments" and so on... would it not just be redundant when we have people coming in and throwing some 4chan image into the debate?

At the end of the day, Soldier, ID and GC are functionally separate. They are not necessarily discrete, but you can't deny that the separation serves a purpose.

I suppose it would be closer to what I cut out of the first paragraph. Sort of.

My point was mainly that people will do what comes naturally to them. Judging by the activity in ID, dissecting lengthy posts and having their own dissected in turn for days on end does not come naturally for most. If they don't want to put up with it they'll just go somewhere else. Like GC. So what's happening now is that there's a relatively large amount of good topics, containing more than just one-liners and 4-chan images, being posted elsewhere that would probably fit best in ID.

Brainstorming for ideas is fine, but what ID really needs is more members in it. There just aren't many people posting there... and I think it's been made clear that it's because they're uncomfortable in one way or another. They probably won't gain an interest in how to debate "properly" overnight, either. It never worked that well for the RP forum.

Given that you need more members to increase activity you're left with two open-ended choices. Keep things the way they are and accept the current activity levels, or conform to the rest of TFF's standards a bit more and try to coexist.

If you go with the latter then try to decide what threads belong in ID. There is obviously some intuition involved, but that more or less is what a mod's job is all about. Hard rules with perfect definitions never existed to begin with. We've naturally thrown all things philosophy, most politics, and the sciences into ID from the start, so it shouldn't be too hard. Obviously, keep those particular threads out of GC so as to avoid an overlap. After that, figure out how to negotiate the difference in posting styles, like dissection and these one-line 4chan posts.

If the subject matter that is distinct to ID cannot be ironed out... then there's a problem. In the context of TFF as a whole, the only real difference in ID's own rules and forum culture is the one paragraph minimum and that the regulars love to write long posts and later dissect them. Personally I don't think that was ever the intention and that we've lost sight of what ID is supposed to be. This is of course provided that you want to keep it relevant to TFF's general member base (and want activity).

At the root of everything, I think you and I may have a difference in opinion on what ID exists for, Alpha. When I first joined this forum there wasn't a one paragraph limit. The intent (as far as I know) wasn't for it to be a wordier version of GC. It was to discuss things that seemed "smart." Being in my early teens it was pretty clear what that meant, but that distinction may blur over time. Who knows.

As for posting styles... I wouldn't "stop" dissection or posts less than a paragraph, nor would I endorse them. If a given member doesn't like having their post torn to shreds, they should make it clear. If they feel they're being harassed, they should report it. If the post is less than a paragraph, what does it matter so long as the point is valid? Elegance can be a beautiful thing. And judging by GC, the majority of posts will be a paragraph or longer regardless. If a mod feels that something is spam or that the constant use of one-liners is getting ridiculous, they can warn the member. A little more trust in the members here can go a long way.

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH. I hope I was able to make my point clearer this time.

[che]

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH. I hope I've made my point a bit clearer this time.

More clear.*

[SOLDIER #819]

more clear.*

You're wrong.

I wish caps lock worked in posts.

[che]

You're wrong.

I wish caps lock worked in posts.

I see your point, but I believe we are both correct, in a way.

source: Clearer/ more clear- explained! - Creative | Learn English at EnglishCafe

[SOLDIER #819]

See what sourcing does? Let's all pay attention to Chad.