Danj
- Male
- 37 Years Old
- Aurora, IL
- US
- Plays: WoW
- Interests: nothing (except Alganon?)
- Offline
Contrary to popular belief, my name isn't Dan J.
Danj was a random character name that I got in some game or other that was short and memorable, so I kept it.
It never fails. A thread in a forum gets 4 replies deep and people start throwing words around like they were jello grenades, i.e. sloppy and none too accurate.
For my own sanity, here are some definitions.
Fact - a concept whose truth can be proved.
Opinion - a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty; 2.a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
True - Consistent with fact or reality; not false or erroneous.
Conjecture - inference from defective or presumptive evidence.
Truth - Well there is no clean definition of "truth" Entire philosophies are dedicated just to describing it. Good luck getting someone to believe you have it.
And for fun let's add :
Scientific Theory - A theory is an
explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and
verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.
VS.
Common usage "theory" An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
So what does this all mean?
"I think this game will suck if it doesn't have stiff death penalties or tons of respecs"
This is an opinion. It is true, since you DO think that, but it is NOT a fact that can be proven.
"This game had this feature and failed, so since this game has it, it will too"
Conjecture. Part of it contains facts that can be proven, but the overall statement does not provide enough information, or, just because part of it is true, that does not mean all of it is true.
There is nothing inherently wrong with opinions and conjectures.We get to know other people by the opinions they hold. It's what makes them interesting. The problem arises when you couch your opinions and conjectures as truth and fact.
Also, comparing your opinion to, say, the scientific theories of Galileo simply shows that you didn't pay attention in science class.
The best way to "win" an argument is to use facts and theories not to prove your opinion is the right one, but to try and make someone else see your side of things. They may not (ok probably won't ever) agree, but at least they will understand why you think the way you do.
Of course, that's just my opinion.
And if any of this hits a little close to home, well you know the theory -
Truth hurts. ;-)
Edit: After writing this someone pointed out Stephen Colbert's concept of "Truthiness" to me, which pretty much nails what I was trying to say, but manages to do it in an amusing and entertaining way.
I agree totally with you Danj and your reply Jergis. I think the main thing that needs to happen during any net communication is respect. There is a lot of comments I see on forums (not just here) that I do not agree with so I either just leave it alone or state my opinion. I have left many forums because I did not like having to defend myself all the time over basic matters.
So I think if members respect each other then everything else should go along smootly (most of the time :) )
Hey, I like this blog-chain. As you may have noticed, I am quite verbose and love having discussions about things. My brain is alway roaming around looking for stimulation, and for that, the Internet has been great.
Yet, yes, the lack of respect (even common decency) and the lack of boundaries disturb me frequently.
Furthermore, what is the purpose of some of the threads (that I assume we are talking about)? It almost feels like it becomes either a bunch of small, seperate personal-vindictive arguments betwees small groups, or that an agenda is formed, and the majority group pounds it home using bully tactics and blocking out any differeing, balancig opinion (or set of facts).
Since I have come to (my) understanding of human beings, I am attempting to accept it, things have been a little better. I think many people actually firm up their own opinion when presented with undisputable fact. They dig in. Just watch the presidential election. :)
I enjoy considering three relative stages in our experience of truth.
Ignorance is bliss - What we don't know won't hurt us.
The Truth hurts - No pain no gain.
The Truth will set you free - In the quest for truth, it's the journey, not the destination.
One additional thought for the great philosopher Anonymous:
Confidence is the feeling you sometimes get when you don't know all the facts.
Great quote Arm! I'm definitely going to have to remember that one.
While I was thinking of some specific threads in these forums when I wrote this, a lot more of this came from a few other sites that I frequent. I maintain a relatively scientific, fact based viewpoint and sometimes it would just drive me nuts how people would grab a popular opinion or belief, defend it to the nine hells, and never actually -check- to see if its accurate for the facts stated. It's not like its hard to fact check, most results from google get you the information you need in under five minutes.
There was a study done recently about one holding onto one's own political beliefs despite absolute contrary facts presented. Generally, it is most common that a person will dig in their heels and become more steadfast in their beliefs as more facts are presented.
I think we have known this for years in this country (especially in politics): facts rarely change people's minds or influence people. You must stir up their emotions, preferably inciting them to blind loyalty as the most powerful tactic. If you can get 'em while their young, especially.
Blind loyalty > facts.
no no no. that's NOT how you argue on the internet.
THIS is how you argue on the internet.
lol /sillieness off
-While i don't think anyone can truly win an argument, there are points in communicative styles to be considered when discussing points over the internet and electronic messaging. It is inherently limited and does not foster complete communication.
Good points
Jergis