It is a big part of moral behavior in ordinary situations not to kill people. Yet the morally healthy inhibition against killing people has to be lost, of necessity, in war—even in a morally justified war. It is a big part of politeness—not in the sense of using the right fork, but in the sense of civility—in ordinary situations not to tell another person that she is wrong and misguided about something she cares a lot about, or that she cares about being right about. For brevity’s sake, let’s just say it’s a big part of politeness or civility not to correct people. Yet the civilized inhibition against correcting people has to be lost, of necessity, in a philosophical argument.Is Polite Philosophical Discussion Possible?
What is Literature for? [SLVimeo]
See it MY way Do you think that if you explain why you believe it, that any intelligent person would agree? See: The Ten Golden Rules of Argument October 1, 2014 by Shane Parrish
The Three Languages of Arts and Cultural Funding : It is a truth universally acknowledged that the public funding of arts and culture will cause political strife. Reasonable people just do not agree on this, and can be surprisingly quick to accuse others of ideological warmongering. An Australian application of The Three Languages of Politics [interview: podcast and transcript] by Arnold Kling. Via The Conversation.
Argument Champion, a game that uses logical connections between words to pwn your opponent.
This morning, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, two cases where private corporations have challenged the Affordable Care Act's contraception coverage mandate. Previously, and previously [more inside]
Today is World Philosophy Day. Celebrate by reading the Euthyphro, Al Jazeera's Defense of Philosophy, or the first chapter of the new book Why We Argue? (And How We Should.) But don't just sit there interpreting the world! The point is to change it, so maybe spend some time advocating for early-childhood philosophy education.
Six years ago, New Dorp High School on Staten Island, NY, had a 40% dropout rate, and more than 80% of freshmen were reading below grade level. In spring 2013, the school expects an 80% graduation rate. What happened? New Dorp decided to teach its students how to write. [more inside]
YOUR QUESTION: You have the ability to, for one night, reanimate any two historical personages (“historical” = “not currently alive”) and have them discuss/debate a topic of your own choosing. Which two historical personages do you choose, and what subject do you have them discuss/debate? (from MeFi's own Jscalzi)
A great contribution to the economics-made-fun genre and food for Mefi thought: Arguing on the internet is addictive because you’re almost always arguing against either a very stupid person or a very smart person, and those are the two types of people most fun to argue with.
People argue just to win, assert researchers. Rationality may have evolved simply to let people feel triumphant; internet inevitable. [more inside]
According to recent studies, arguing on the internet is now the second most popular leisure activity in the world, just below shopping and just above sex. But how many of those who spend half their lives debating God versus Atheism or Climate Change on a message board or blog really know how to win those arguments? Now, for the first time, anonymous internet guru Noseybonk reveals the ploys, tactics and strategems of Blogmanship: the art of winning arguments on the internet without really knowing what you are talking about. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.
frontsection.net is a tasteful, politically right-on and truly curatorial take on aggregating web content. Careful, combined with an MF habit, this is going to eat up a lot of hours. Although the site is MetaFilter-inspired, all links are the fruit of one intrepid reader whose work, it must be admitted, sometimes grinds to a halt for up to a week at a time.
How to Argue With Zompist: Or Social-Skills 101 A helpful guide for online discussion and debate written by Mark Rosenfelder with some help from notmydesk and others.
The Hierarchy of Disagreement: Based on Paul Graham's essay "How to Disagree" (prev), the diagram ranks the types of arguments that can be made. Not quite the same as logical fallacies but a useful guide to measure whether you're making a good argument or if "you are an ass hat".
The Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art was to have been the home of Christoph Büchel's first major US installation, "Training Ground for Democracy". But disputes over budget overruns and missed deadlines led the museum to cancel the project. [NYT registration required] The incomplete installation is now tied up in litigation, and covered by tarp.
My Quonah. "My name is David C and I am the biggest idiot on this planet! Every girl I've ever met has done nothing except want me for what I had to offer them, the amount of cash I could throw their way and not for the person I was. One day that all changed when I meet a lady called Quonah..." Should she call him?
How To Win An Argument. Plus, if you scroll down, you'll find an argument about "How To Win An Argument." (Which may remind you of a Monty Python skit.) What do you think of this guy's strategy? Compassionate or passive-aggressive?
Truthmapping: The Ultimate Attempt to Rationalize Debate? From lofty ontological arguments for the existence of God and for the self-contradictory nature of determinism to relatively more down to earth propositions about the unconstitutionality of abortion and the justice of the war in Iraq: can many significant debates be reduced to simple sets of premises and conclusions? Should they be?
There is something further to be said on the issue of disagreement. If two people find that there are arguments on both sides that are both very compelling, maybe that renders the answer to the question what is right and wrong indeterminate. Maybe there isn’t a clear answer. [via SciTech Daily]
"Biggest flame war of all time: Danny Boy - sentimental Irish favorite, or stupid song decried by true Celts everywhere?" A link to a discussion in another forum about how one prevents the banal from driving out the profound in online public-participation forums. (Their conclusion: ruthless and efficient moderation.)