gabriel
New
The position I portrayed is born of extensive contact with skeptics. I feel confident in saying any proponent who has engaged with a self-styled skeptic on the internet will recognise that I haven't just drawn it out of my backside. If you can't see that, have you considered it may be myopia on your part? I've asked you on a number of occasions for clarity, particularly after long drawn out posts like this, and you've never consolidated your beliefs into something tangible. It's always about the other person. Always.The post I was replying to? Yes, I thought it was aimed at me, especially as it repeated charges that I'm pretty sure you've aimed at me on more than one occasion, and then said "over to you, Arouet". But perhaps I misinterpreted. So maybe I should clarify. Do you apply any of the following to me:
- Stonewalling.
- Legalism.
- Evidential high jumps.
- Masquerading as a quest for mutual understanding.
Ok, let's take that as the definition. What criteria are you applying to evaluate this?
Sorry Gabriel, I'm not sure what this is meant to mean, and upon what it is based Your example doesn't help either:
Hold on. I'm a resident skeptic who has not come out as a philosophical materialist. In fact, I've quite explicitly stated that I'm not one. I'm not sure why you find that objectionable, or how it is an example of "inhabiting the intellectual high ground, without stating what that ground is" or "negotiating an advantage which I am not required to support" or "prodding what I feel is the oppositions soft parts without inviting an equivalent response."
For my part, I always try and establish the support for any position I advance, and often offer to supply further material if people want. When I reply to a post I don't cherry pick for soft part, I answer each an every part of a post, often indicating areas where I agree. And I regularly ask for - even beg for - critique of my position in response.
This is the problem with your stereotyping. Regardless of what I say, you treat anything I write as if they follow your stereotypical rules. That automatically makes any kind of real discourse impossible, because you aren't really responding to me. I'm using me as an example but it applies to the others as well.
Your rants, where you scoop a diverse group of people, each with pros and cons, into this amorphous blob of extreme positions distract from legitimate critiques of individual arguments and contribute to the breakdown of real communication, which is what you claim to support. You argue that you should try and figure out what a person believes. There's nothing wrong with that in principle. But not as a means to beat their arguments - that's tactics, gamesmanship and debate, not communication. You want to figure out what someone believes? Ask them questions and pay attention to the answers. . You want real communication? Respond to what they say, not what you think they should have said if they met your imagined stereotype. Explain your own positions as clearly as you can and then pay attention to the response.
As for my beliefs - that's a pretty broad question and this forum is filled with my expositions of them. If you have a specific question then ask. And there is very little of which I am certain, though I usually try and state roughly where I stand on a given issue, and provide my reasons in as much detail as I have time for. As for my ire - it's not sloppy thinking that raises it. It is personal attacks and treating people badly that does.
Erm- I guess back over to you?
Until you're prepared to adopt a position more engaging and solid than stonewalling, legalism and evidential high jumps backed by a notional quest for understanding, I consider your position weak and your contribution fair game.