addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1light-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Seattle Analytic Philosophy Club Message Board › Future debates

Future debates

George
user 74564852
Raleigh, NC
Post #: 70
Funny. I'm musing on how everything we post here is predetermined billions of years ago... No worries.
Mark M.
user 36541252
Seattle, WA
Post #: 13
Gene - I like this format, but you will have to count me as a half vote as I cannot make every meetup. I will think about a topic.

Mark
Jason
user 3213556
Seattle, WA
Post #: 82

http://www.meetup.com...­

I note the attendance list above with great interest. So do you enjoy wasting time with frivolous activities, instead of spending that time preparing a non-frivolous session for the analytic club which you claim are concerned about? Actions don't seem to match words - problem.
Sure, I at times enjoy a range of frivolous activities; most forms of recreational activity are pretty frivolous. I also watch science fiction. I don't mistake it for science.
Jason
user 3213556
Seattle, WA
Post #: 83
Can we drop this? Since neither you or I were there, I'm not going to argue about whether or not something was a debate when it was characterized as such by someone who was actually there.
You're welcome to drop it, but it is worth pointing out that whether was debate doesn't depend on this guy's subjective characterization of it, which I think he realizes given his description of what happened, but rather is a matter of fact that is not even difficult to check. A quick google search yielded the program for the event: http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.apaonline.org/resource/resmgr/proceedings_2009/january_2009.pdf­
and you can see that it's just one of their standard speaker/commentor sessions.

I know debate is valuable from extensive experience. There is no argument that is going to change the actual experiences I had. You give no absolutely no reason for your opinions about debate in any case. Audiences also tend to enjoy debates.
The issue isn't one of value or enjoyment; as I said in my original post, my reason for suggesting that you don't pursue the debates as part of APC is that"Recreational sophistry and rhetoric are neither objectives of nor esteemed pursuits within the analytic tradition". Debates of the type that you are talking about are games; they are theatre. The moves that are made in these games are precisely the ones that the analytic tradition seeks to prevent for obscuring philosophy. Again, I'm not saying you shouldn't do it, just that you should take it for what it is, and APC for what it is.

I'm retiring from this thread. One last thing:

If you don't think debates are the best course (despite attending them yourself), post your alternate list of sessions you will run for the club. Otherwise, there will be far fewer meetups because there are currently no alternatives, is that what you are proposing?
I was proposing exactly what I said, that you should pursue debates elsewhere.
Gene L
user 19640341
Group Organizer
Seattle, WA
Post #: 594
Gene - I like this format, but you will have to count me as a half vote as I cannot make every meetup. I will think about a topic.

Mark
Mark,

Thanks for considering running sessions for the club. Let me know if you want to do a topic. I know you are interested in the philosophy of mind - we did a number of sessions on that recently - but one topic you might want to consider that we didn't delve into recently is artificial intelligence.


Gene L
user 19640341
Group Organizer
Seattle, WA
Post #: 596
I said was going to retire from this thread, but I think it is necessary to correct some misinformation.

Both I and my opponent for the Plantinga debate were competitive collegiate debaters. Competitive debate is structured and designed to be judged. It involves a variety of skills, all of which are useful, and none of which could be characterized as "sophistry". If Dave Ptasnick (my opponent) is reading this, I'm sure he would also confirm this. Jason, to my knowledge has never debated before.

There is no way to "prove" who is right, but I suggest you might give some credence to someone who has extensive debate experience.

As for "recreational", it seems really strange to criticize something for being recreational. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is all recreational, otherwise, if it is work, shouldn't someone be getting paid?

So I'm going to try again with another thread for those who have constructive suggestions. Mark, thanks for your considering presenting to the club, you can respond on the other thread if you decide to do so.
Mark M.
user 36541252
Seattle, WA
Post #: 14
Gene - Yes I would do a debate. Would it not take two participants to agree to take two sides of a topic? I have no expertise in AI. On the other hand, I do have a strong feeling against Androids. I think they are some kind of elaborate avoidance strategy. I would be happy to argue that Androids ( 'Data' from Star Trek Next Gen ) are effectively impossible. It is an analytical philosophical topic, but it also connects with normal life.

There are other philosophy of mind issues I would be happy to debate, but they do not come to mind right now.
Gene L
user 19640341
Group Organizer
Seattle, WA
Post #: 599
Gene - Yes I would do a debate. Would it not take two participants to agree to take two sides of a topic? I have no expertise in AI. On the other hand, I do have a strong feeling against Androids. I think they are some kind of elaborate avoidance strategy. I would be happy to argue that Androids ( 'Data' from Star Trek Next Gen ) are effectively impossible. It is an analytical philosophical topic, but it also connects with normal life.

There are other philosophy of mind issues I would be happy to debate, but they do not come to mind right now.
Mark,

How about debating the Chinese room problem? Should be fun, and would probably draw a good audience. I looks like you want to argue in favor of the Searle's thesis? I could take the other side.
Jason
user 3213556
Seattle, WA
Post #: 84
Both I and my opponent for the Plantinga debate were competitive collegiate debaters. Competitive debate is structured and designed to be judged. It involves a variety of skills, all of which are useful, and none of which could be characterized as "sophistry". If Dave Ptasnick (my opponent) is reading this, I'm sure he would also confirm this. Jason, to my knowledge has never debated before.

There is no way to "prove" who is right, but I suggest you might give some credence to someone who has extensive debate experience.

As for "recreational", it seems really strange to criticize something for being recreational. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is all recreational, otherwise, if it is work, shouldn't someone be getting paid?
I see no reason for your experience debating to have any weight in the consideration of this issue.
As far as the role of sophistry, it certainly isn't a necessary trait of debates, however, you have made it clear that you would be happy to argue either side of topics, so in at least some cases you would be making a case for arguments that you do not believe are sound, which is not uncommon in debates.
It is an obvious distortion of what I said to to claim I criticize it for being 'recreational'. What I did say was "Recreational sophistry and rhetoric are neither objectives of nor esteemed pursuits within the analytic tradition."
Also, since you mention the proposed EAAN debate, just to be clear, I was suggesting that the APC not be involved with debates in general. This is just my perspective on it, and I think it's worthwhile for the group to give it some thought and for other group members to weigh in on it.
Gene L
user 19640341
Group Organizer
Seattle, WA
Post #: 600
Jason,

I am NOT making a case for any philosophical arguments I do not believe are sound. That is just wrong, For many if not most philosophical controversies, both sides are sound, that is why they are still are still around. There are good arguments on both sides and they are still open questions - including for me.

Mark has already expressed an interest in debating and contributing constructively to the club. No one else but you is talking about debate.
Powered by mvnForum

Our Sponsors

  • DesignYum.com

    Our group is being sponsored by this outstanding design blog.

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy