Saturday, January 24, 2015
Some ground rules for debate
Before we go any further, lets lay down a few ground rules to help ensure that we dont waste each others time.
Rule 1: cogito ergo sum
If we debate long enough, its possible that well become unhinged from reality and start to question everything. Perhaps the world is not what it seems. Maybe our senses are lying to us. What if this is all a dream? What if youre a figment of my imagination or Im a figment of yours?
If we get to this point, we need to stop immediately, and back up.
All arguments boil down to just a single truth:
I think, therefore I am. - René Descartes
 |
| I am, therefore I think |
If we cant agree to these axioms, then we shouldnt waste any more time debating. If "I think, therefore I am" is the only thing youre willing to believe, then we wont make it very far anyway. After all, if everything is a lie, what could we possibly gain from a debate?
Rule 2: theories and models
Although Ill rely on some axioms as the basis for my reality, most of my claims will come from theories. I put this word in italics because it needs some explanation.
Outside of a scientific context, the word theory often means that something is uncertain or unproven. For example, people like to criticize the theory of evolution by saying "its only a theory."
This is an unfortunate mix-up because, in science, theory means something different. A theory is an explanation based on observation and experimentation that can be used to describe and predict something.
In other words, a theory is a tool that you use. It is a model of reality that can be used to make predictions; whether or not the theory corresponds to some underlying truth about that reality is (almost) irrelevant.
In fact, Ill go one step further:
All models are wrong, but some are useful. - George E.P. Box
Yep, all theories are wrong. And thats OK. For example, we know that the theory of gravity is wrong (see: general relativity); we know that Newtons laws of motion are wrong (see: special relativity); in fact, most of classical physics is wrong (see: quantum mechanics); there is a whole wiki page of superseded scientific theories. Nevertheless, all of these theories have been and continue to be incredibly useful, providing the essential tools for building airplanes, bridges, computers, spaceships, and understanding the universe.
The goal of a theory isnt to be right; after all, you can never really be right, as per rule 1. The goal of a theory is to be useful. The important question is not "is this theory correct" but rather, "does this theory let us make predictions about the world better than other theories"?
The goal of a theory isnt to be right; after all, you can never really be right, as per rule 1. The goal of a theory is to be useful. The important question is not "is this theory correct" but rather, "does this theory let us make predictions about the world better than other theories"?
For example, the theory of evolution by natural selection lets us make some good predictions about how plant and animal species came to be and what will happen to them in the future. It may be only a theory, but its a very useful one. On the other hand, intelligent design doesnt match our observations, isnt useful for making predictions, and therefore not a theory.
So, when you and I debate, its not worth debating axioms, so all we can really do is debate theories. And we wont debate them based on the merit of whether they are true or not, but whether they are more useful than other theories.
Rule 3: the most important question
One final step before we can have a debate: you need to ask yourself a question. Its arguably the most important question in all of science, reason, and debate:
What would convince you that youre wrong?
Be honest. What facts, evidence, or events would convince you that your current stance in the debate is wrong? This question is the very basis of the scientific method.
If there is not a single thing in the world that could convince you that youre wrong, then your stance isnt a theory, but an article of faith. And faith cannot be debated.
What would convince an evolutionary scientist that the theory of evolution is totally wrong? That is, what would show that the theory of evolution is not a useful model? I can think of a few examples: discovering evidence that the earth was just a few thousand years old; observing a new species magically materialize with no connection to any other species; finding evidence that the entire fossil record is an elaborate hoax by the liberal media.
What would convince someone who believes in intelligent design that they are wrong? As far as I know, nothing. Apparently, numerous observations of natural selection in progress, mounds of data showing the earth is over 4 billion years old, an extensive fossil record, and countless examples of unintelligent design are not enough. This is yet another reason intelligent design is not a scientific theory and should not be taught as one in schools.
As long as a debate is about faith instead of theory, it is largely pointless, since there is nothing that can change either partys mind. This is why its so painful to debate topics like abortion, conspiracy theories, politics, and religion.
Therefore, I propose that we only have a debate if both of us can identify, at least to ourselves, that there is at least one piece of evidence that could convince us that were wrong.
Therefore, I propose that we only have a debate if both of us can identify, at least to ourselves, that there is at least one piece of evidence that could convince us that were wrong.
Alright, lets do this
Made it this far?
Good.
Because Im ready to put on a clinic.
Good.
Because Im ready to put on a clinic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.