Louis
Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
| Quote (demallien @ April 11 2007,22:05) | Louis,
Ahhh, I think I get something of your position which perhaps had escaped me earlier. When you talk about behaviour being dishonest on a forum, you mean, for example that if someone contradicts themself, then at least one of the two contradicting statements must be "dishonest". The fact that the person themself could consider themself as having been honest both times (due to not understanding that they have contradicted themself, or due to being stupid, or insane or whatever), your position is that for all intent and purpose we should treat that person's discussion as dishonest, even if the person themself is actually trying to be honest. Is that right? |
Not really no. You've got one section but missed another few.
Whatever I or anyone else can detect from the limited information a person's posting habits all we can really comment about is the evidence we have: i.e. their words and posts. I don't think this can often easily be reduced to one offs, or simple examples, although I am sure they happen. It's not very common in my experience that adults engaged in a debate very obviously consciously, and deliberately lie in the "No I didn't break that vase Mummy" sense. What is vastly more common is a kind of "low grade" dishonesty of the type Wesley mentions and I elaborate on above. It's more to do with how a debate is conducted and whether someone is willing to distort and obfuscate in order to "score points". Which is why I've been advocating a cautious approach to the topic of dishonesty, and one based on collecting the evidence and then making a case that is refutable by the evidence. I think a simple contradiction on its own is insufficient to establish such a case. As part of a broader series of demonstrable posting traits it might be a key part of an overall pattern.
As I've repeatedly said: a) concrete comments about people's character are difficult to make based on limited information (like posts on a message board). Sure, broad inferences can be made, but we must always realise that in the absence of complimentary evidence fro other sources that those inferences could be flawed, b) I'm not interested in what/who people are in the real world if I'm engaged in an online debate with them, I'm interested in how they conduct themselves in the online debate. If they conduct themselves dishonestly (by using all those lovely tactics I mention above) then one can build at least a prima facie that they are behaving dishonestly in the context of that debate. What this says about them globally is irrelevant and not my concern.
The point of this is that there are certain methods of debate and discussion which by their very use mark people as dishonestly conducting that debate or discussion. As I've said repeatedly one of these things being used is unlikely to be sufficient evidence of dishonesty, but through the course of a discussion if one can reasonably eliminate the possibility that one's opponent is merely stupid, misled, ignorant, or unwilling then one can come to the tentative conclusion that they are acting dishonestly. Or we can have the sort of scenario that Wesley mentions in which someone is being so manifestly dishonest that it stands out. It's not cut and dried, nor is there necessarily a General Law of Dishonesty.
So no, your example doesn't work and isn't anything like what I am saying. Go back and read the OP again, this time for some modicum of comprehension. A simple contradiction isn't sufficient. If this person had contradicted themselves, no matter how sincerely, it could easily be incompetence or error, however, if they repeatedly contradict themselves AND engage in strawmen AND refuse to admit the contradiction AND quote mine AND use logical fallacies AND pull the "persecution" card if their claims are refuted AND......etc then one might reasonably be able to build a case that this person is behaving dishonestly.
Obviously it goes without saying that this is not a one size fits all, we must judge each case on it's merits. Equally obviously the sincerity of someone's belief can be a factor. However, sincerity is not an excuse for shoddy argumentation (my points about respect and civility in the OP). If we respect our opponents and their arguments we owe it to them and to ourselves to do the best we can to establish our claims. We owe it to them and to ourselves to be humble and admit when we are wrong or when our claims are refuted. If someone believes themselves to be honest and demonstrably isn't, they are delusional and dishonest! It's a tough old world! In fact the false shield of "sincerity" or even of "faith" is one often hidden behind by people arguing dishonestly. Dishonesty doesn't have to be the bare faced, outright, consciously chosen lie, human psychology is a little more complex than that. People can be dishonest without consciously deciding to be so. I mentioned a couple of example in the OP. Which of course you'd know if you'd read it for a modicum of comprehension, which the less charitable amongst us might think you haven't.
Louis
--------------
Bye.
|
