What the heck is "Unfun"?

[Raven Crowking]

Why is that a problem? I mean, honestly, it sounds like you're agreeing with the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" thesis.

If I have 10 foundational beliefs which must be overthrown before I believe your claim, you will have to convince me of the error of all 10 foundational beliefs before I can accept your claim. Therefore, your claim will require more evidence than a claim which does not require me to reject any foundational beliefs I may hold.

Correct.

But let us say instead that A is B, and that you wish to convince me that A is B. I have these ten beliefs that make me believe, erroneously, that A is not B. I could ask you "Where is your proof?" but until I have explained that I have these 10 beliefs, and told you what they are, there is no chance at all for you to accidently discover what has mistakenly made me believe that A is not B. I am holding you to an absurd burden of proof.

Conversely, imagine the same, but A is not B, and I have 10 reasons for believing so that may or may not be correct. Again, unless I tell you what they are, you cannot address them, and therefore you cannot decide that you are wrong on their basis, or even that I am right although the basis for my belief is wrong.

Throughout this series of posts, you'll note Gizmo33 especially saying IF A, then B. By giving us the IF, he is telling us specifically the conditions under which he draws his conclusions. Similarly, I gave my reasoning in a point-by-point format, which some people didn't find convincing (even if they could not show me why in a way that convinced me).

By expressing the foundations that cause you to believe a thing, you open up the possibility of gaining an expanded worldview....or of aiding another to the same. By simply demanding "extraordinary proof" without determining why a claim is extraordinary, or what sort of proof would be needed, you are doing nothing more than ensuring that your worldview can remain static....whether it is right or wrong.

That is largely, IMHO, the difference between actual discussion of a topic and simple conversation. Simple conversation is fine, of course, but demands for extraordinary proof belong in an actual discussion, IMHO. Attempting to use "ECREP" as a means to shut a discussion down, while believing it to be a rational response, is evidence of irrational thinking. The phrase by itself, shorn of any context, is meaningless, and its use in an argument in this way (although extremely common) ought to be considered a fallacy.

IMHO.

YMMV.


RC

 

[KarinsDad]

Attempting to use "ECREP" as a means to shut a discussion down, while believing it to be a rational response, is evidence of irrational thinking.

So is talking about this crap.

Can we get back to the actual Unfun discussion, or are people going to discuss about how to discuss for 4 more pages?

 

[Glyfair]

So is talking about this crap.

Can we get back to the actual Unfun discussion, or are people going to discuss about how to discuss for 4 more pages?

Talk about "unfun", I think this thread crossed that line a while ago

 

[gizmo33]

Can we get back to the actual Unfun discussion, or are people going to discuss about how to discuss for 4 more pages?

Where were you when this topic was being raised originally in order to stonewall the thread? If you have an outstanding issue that you want to be addressed, just simply indicate what it is.

 

[Cadfan]

Raven Crowking-

You claim that the "extraordinary claims... etc" argument is a non rational way of avoiding actual debate by concealing baseline assumptions behind a catchy phrase. However, what I see is that your denial of the possibility of common frames of reference coupled with your insistence that extensive baseline assumptions and world views must be fully elaborated upon before discussion can occur is actually the real non rational way of avoiding discussion, this time by obscuring the possibility of immediately beginning the conversation behind extensive obfuscation on the nature of shared perceptions of reality.

 

[Nifft]

However, what I see is that your denial of the possibility of common frames of reference coupled with your insistence that extensive baseline assumptions and world views must be fully elaborated upon before discussion can occur is actually the real non rational way of avoiding discussion, this time by obscuring the possibility of immediately beginning the conversation behind extensive obfuscation on the nature of shared perceptions of reality.

I'd like to nominate this sentence for honorary Kantian status.

Cheers, -- N

 

[helium3]

I'm really confused now. What's this thread about?

 

[Nifft]

I'm really confused now. What's this thread about?

The nature of shared perceptions of reality, of course.

Specifically, fun.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Raven Crowking-

You claim that the "extraordinary claims... etc" argument is a non rational way of avoiding actual debate by concealing baseline assumptions behind a catchy phrase. However, what I see is that your denial of the possibility of common frames of reference coupled with your insistence that extensive baseline assumptions and world views must be fully elaborated upon before discussion can occur is actually the real non rational way of avoiding discussion, this time by obscuring the possibility of immediately beginning the conversation behind extensive obfuscation on the nature of shared perceptions of reality.

I agree. I sometimes call this "obstructionist arguing" where you try to break down the possibility of having a discussion, rather than try to actually have it.

 

[gizmo33]

I agree. I sometimes call this "obstructionist arguing" where you try to break down the possibility of having a discussion, rather than try to actually have it.

That's what asking for proof of the existence of people that don't matter to the conversation was doing in the original situation. The "proof" being asked for was actually supporting an assertion that was not the central point of the case being made.