--- Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oh. So if I prefer vanilla over chocolate, it's > invalid. Got it. (Never > mind that I was not the one trying to insert feeling > and conjecture > into the discussion to begin with.)
No, but that's not a persuadable point. If you were trying to convince me that vanilla was somehow better than chocolate - you couldn't, because that's a matter of preference, not evidence. If you wanted to convince me that (somehow) chocolate ice cream was better for my _health_ than vanilla ice cream (that's a rationally provable argument) then to do so you'd need something more than I think so. There are different types of data with different types of reliability that you could provide, but a feeling that this is so is not a useful one. > > If you don't have data you're just > > asserting your belief indepednent of rational > > argument. > > Hope the religious guys don't see this. Have you read Dan's posts on exactly this topic? I always love to - I learn more about both topics and constructing arguments from them than I do in most of my classes. I don't think he has ever claimed that you can rationally prove the existence of God. It's a matter of belief for precisely that reason. > "Vague memories" ... and you dare to ask me for > empirical citations? Well, yeah, I was speaking somewhat gently. As Erik demonstrated, they weren't actually vague at all. > > I find it interesting that when you have an > opportunity to show > yourself as superior by holding solid facts, you > don't. I think you're > an ideologue and you really don't have anything at > all to back you up > apart from your own delusions. I'm not trying to show myself as superior. Nothing could interest me less. We're all equals on this list, even Brin. In point of fact, though, I _did_ cite exactly where I got my evidence - a lecture by two professors who wrote the standard introductory textbook on American politics. That is a pretty strong source. I'll cite them both again - my recollection of turnout data came from a lecture by Paul Peterson (Stanford Department of Political Science) and Morris Fiorina (Harvard Department of Government). Sometimes I will talk about stuff based on conversations that cannot be attributed, but when I do I try to be careful to point that out. This was one that could be attributed, and I even mentioned the name of the book where you could look to find the data if you wanted. I'll do it again - it's called _The New American Democracy_ by the same two professors. > > I would ask you > > what's your particular resistance to supporting > ideas > > with evidence from the real world, not just > speculation? > > Are you seriously asking an atheist this question? Yes. You expressed an idea about turnout. I disagreed and constructed an argument that cited several particular elections as empirical validation of it. I didn't find the exact turnout numbers at one in the morning, but that's better than _no_ support and (as Erik was kind enough to find them) we quickly found out that my memories were quite accurate, so that's quite a lot of empirical evidence. Instead of, say, citing polling data of the American public which shows that the opinions of non-voters are radically different than those of voters (such data does not exist, but if you do find it, tell me, because if it was any good I could probably get tenure out of it :-) you called me an "ideologue" and said that I suffered from "delusions." I'm taking Dan and Bryon's advice and not responding in kind. Note that I am not an empiricist. There are plenty of things that I am willing to take on faith. But when there _is_ evidence, I prefer arguments based on it, and there are mountains of evidence on the opinions and preferences of the American public. Now, I've been wrong on this list in my opinions before, and Dan (for example), has proven to my satisfaction that I'm wrong (he persuaded me on missile defense, for example) by using pretty much exactly this style of argument. So it can be done. I flatter myself by thinking it can be done quite easily, actually. You can certainly convince me that the reason that ~40% of the electorate stays home in even the most hotly-disputed election is because they feel that neither is sufficiently radical or whatever, but you need more to do that than just saying you think that is the case. ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
