"Opinons" is interesting, personal experience is valuable.

[anotherT34C]

Originally Posted by dacust

Truth Seeker: They are looking for the correct/best answer, no matter where it comes from. If the person they are talking to makes a good point, they acknowledge it (hopefully out loud). They will recognize when someone has proved them wrong. And they are happy when the best answer/solution is achieved, no matter what the beginning positions were.

Goal Seeker: They want a particular outcome from the argument. If the person they are talking to makes a good point on their side, they tend to ignore it. Not only do they not acknowledge a good point, they don;t internalize it or even recognize it later. They tend to listen to the other person only until they hear something the think they have a good argument against. They are more likely to interrupt.

Win Seeker: They just want to come out the winner. They listen for ANYTHING they can argue against. This means they tend to change the subject so they can move to something they think they can win.

If you recognize this in others, you can make better decisions on how to discuss issues, and better decisions about when to just walk away.

Excellent. I agree with you 100%. Myself, I refer to the three categories you describe as 'scientific', 'socratic' and 'contrarian'. The most interesting thing (at least to me) is that very often, people who habitually inhabit categories two and three, refuse to believe category one even exists (they're committing some kind of wacky solipsism).

More on-target, I do tend to give more weight to discussion from folks who've "lived it", so to speak. That's not to say folks who are "planning it" don't have valuable information to pass on. Whether you've yet encountered a squall, probably nearly everyone here (regulars) has had the experience of buying or selling through a broker, and has valuable information to pass on.

[Chiroeurope]

Originally Posted by anotherT34C

Excellent. I agree with you 100%. Myself, I refer to the three categories you describe as 'scientific', 'socratic' and 'contrarian'. The most interesting thing (at least to me) is that very often, people who habitually inhabit categories two and three, refuse to believe category one even exists (they're committing some kind of wacky solipsism).

More on-target, I do tend to give more weight to discussion from folks who've "lived it", so to speak. That's not to say folks who are "planning it" don't have valuable information to pass on. Whether you've yet encountered a squall, probably nearly everyone here (regulars) has had the experience of buying or selling through a broker, and has valuable information to pass on.

While I tend to agree to the three positions as given in their first form I tend to disagree wit the above description. Not in that I have any point against the person stating them only in that I have read both the Apologies and the Republic (Res Public) in full and find them to be discussions on seeking the truth and using logic to arrive at what maybe it. Socrates does attempt to persuade for his position but even the works even admits this position and that it may not be the correct one.

I know of many in the "scientific" fields that are only looking to prove the outcome they are paid to prove. Which violates the very foundation of sound scientific principle in that your primary goal is to disprove a hypothesis, not prove it. The current pharmacological industry is a wonderful example of the proving camp (I have seen some pretty weird Chi squares used to get the sig' Fig' that where wanted to meet the requirements).

As to the original question and it's importance. All things need to be tested against some form of measure (this does not mean do stupid things like sail into a hurricane). As I have taught my students in Logic classes. Test each theory against known givens and see which shift. Sometimes the givens are correct and sometimes not. For myself I have found a lot of wonderful information here and people that I hope to meet on the water at some point in the hopefully near future and buy them a beer.

Michael

[anotherT34C]

Originally Posted by Chiroeurope

While I tend to agree to the three positions as given in their first form I tend to disagree wit the above description. Not in that I have any point against the person stating them only in that I have read both the Apologies and the Republic (Res Public) in full and find them to be discussions on seeking the truth and using logic to arrive at what maybe it. Socrates does attempt to persuade for his position but even the works even admits this position and that it may not be the correct one.

I know of many in the "scientific" fields that are only looking to prove the outcome they are paid to prove. Which violates the very foundation of sound scientific principle in that your primary goal is to disprove a hypothesis, not prove it. The current pharmacological industry is a wonderful example of the proving camp (I have seen some pretty weird Chi squares used to get the sig' Fig' that where wanted to meet the requirements).

As to the original question and it's importance. All things need to be tested against some form of measure (this does not mean do stupid things like sail into a hurricane). As I have taught my students in Logic classes. Test each theory against known givens and see which shift. Sometimes the givens are correct and sometimes not. For myself I have found a lot of wonderful information here and people that I hope to meet on the water at some point in the hopefully near future and buy them a beer.

Michael

I think it's mainly a disagreement over definitions. When I refer to 'socratic' I refer to the adversarial debate method as taught in american law schools, and practiced in american politics and think-tanks. In general, they are not interested in finding truth, but in back-justifying a given position. This contrasts sharply with scientific method, which is not adversarial, has no place for a devil's advocate, and where the data drives the conclusion.

I have found individual scientists who are lazy with the way they speak, talking about 'experiment X proving hypothesis Y' when they should instead be talking about how 'hypothesis Y has not been disproven by experiment X'. However, this is an individual problem, not a problem with the method in general. I don't find academic scientists looking to prove something they have been paid to prove. Grants don't work that way. This does routinely happens in think-tanks, but think-tanks have no scientific credibility. As for pharma companies, yes I routinely see them skirting good science in order to engineer a product. In those cases, I refuse to acknowledge that they are doing science at all, and any papers they try to get reviewed should fall flat.

[ssullivan]

Originally Posted by anotherT34C

scientific method, which is not adversarial, has no place for a devil's advocate, and where the data drives the conclusion.

Having been a trained scientist (scientific method) in a former life, I have to ask, "where is the love??"

A devil's advocate is a fantastic person to have around in a lab. I always enjoyed conversing, hypothesizing and problem solving with my peers in that environment.

Some of my fondest memories of the work I did on NASA's/ESA's SMEX/Explorer Missions was time spent whiteboarding out new ideas and approaches to problems.

When someone popped into my corner of the lab to play devil's advocate, I was usually more than grateful and gained a new perspective more often than not.

The data rarely (I didn't say never) lies, but the humanity that comes from problem solving with a good team is more powerful than anything else, IMO.

[anotherT34C]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to figure out new ways to disprove a hypothesis. It's essential. That's not what I mean by 'devil's advocate'. In scientific inquiry, once a test of is devised, everybody is looking (testing) to see if the hypothesis survives. We're all on the same side. That's the love.

[ssullivan]

Originally Posted by anotherT34C

There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to figure out new ways to disprove a hypothesis. It's essential. That's not what I mean by 'devil's advocate'. In scientific inquiry, once a test of is devised, everybody is looking (testing) to see if the hypothesis survives. We're all on the same side. That's the love.

Good answer! Glad to see the "love" is still alive in the lab.

[exfishnz]

How is this thread even on topic, is it even about boating? Should it be closed? I created a thread on boating (Cook Strait) & now its been removed[1]. It would be a shame if people were to consider that there may be hypocrite behavior around here, it would kinda negate the point of posting at all & perhaps that is the subtle point being made

PS. Perhaps “Social Knowledge LLC” should have an entity name change to “Bankrupt Knowledge LLC”???

[1] I even double checked under another IP address range.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by exfishnz

... I created a thread on boating (Cook Strait) & now its been removed ...

You might be interested in another CF thread about COOK STRAIT* (Ruakawa in Maori). [*spelling corrected, courtesy of exf...] Cook Strait Weather, NZ

[exfishnz]

Hello Gord,

Thanks for the link, but I'm more interested in the one that had several pages of members time put into it. I've yet to still receive any notice of why it was removed (previous 24hrs). Perhaps it was a database error??? Perhaps multiple threads will now start disappearing??? Until we find out, there's not really much point in adding more to another one, maybe that one might also disappear???

Edit: its unlike you to have a spelling error[1] re: "COOK STRAIGHT", but I did the same thing also, on the last page of the missing thread, perhaps you've seen it???

[1] esp given how you can pick us up on 'em at times

[exfishnz]

Actually, I'm a little bit concerned about the database issue, maybe I should contact Mr Andy Robinowitz at Social Knowledge??? I'd hate for a gremlin to be going though their DB.