Keys to productive internet discussions

[MathGeek]

There are days on the forum when there is a lot of less useful information and a lot of wasted bandwidth. Here are some of my guiding principles for better discussion:

1. I try and distinguish between what I know from firsthand observation, what I know from reliable (usually published) sources, and what I "heard somewhere."
2. I try and clearly communicate my confidence level in information and/or conclusions.
3. I work hard to present the best facts possible without veering off into logical fallacies:

3A. A common fallacy is the ad hominem (at the man) attack. In legal cases, it is often said to argue the facts if they are on your side. If you don't have the facts supporting your case, argue the law if it is on your side. If you have neither the facts or the law, then attack the character of your opponent. Attacking the character of parties on the internet takes several forms such as insults, put downs, attribution of impure motives, etc.

3B. The straw man fallacy is mischaracterizing the essential points of your opponent's position to make it easier to discredit. Often a position is represented as more extreme than it actually is or peripheral issues are exaggerated as if they are essential to the opposing view.

3C. The burden of proof fallacy either shifts the burden of proof or demands a higher level of supporting evidence than is customary in supporting a position in a given field. For example, in criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. In food safety, the burden of proof is often to show that food is safe for consumption. In most other areas of government regulation, the burden of proof is on the government to show compelling evidence that restrictions of individual liberty are both consistent with the US Constitution and necessary for the common good. We should always work to compel the government toward less regulation until compelling evidence is presented in need of more restrictive regulations. "Better safe than sorry" is a manipulative mindset for growing government and infringing liberty.

3D. The bandwagon fallacy suggests that a position must be correct because it has a lot of supporters.

3E. The appeal to authority fallacy suggests that a position must be correct because certain authorities have supported it without due consideration to the soundness of reasoning expressed by the authorities in support of a position.

3F. The appeal to fear suggests the negative consequences for not taking the advocated action overwhelm the weakness of the actual case supporting the advocated action.

There are lots of other logical fallacies that tend to detract from the productivity of discussions, but these are the prominent ones I've seen here. I won't pretend to be perfect in carrying out discussions, but I think if we work together we might improve our helping each other to reach common goals (catch more fish!) by working harder to implement these guidelines for improved civility and discourse.

[adamsfence]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

There are days on the forum when there is a lot of less useful information and a lot of wasted bandwidth. Here are some of my guiding principles for better discussion:

1. I try and distinguish between what I know from firsthand observation, what I know from reliable (usually published) sources, and what I "heard somewhere."
2. I try and clearly communicate my confidence level in information and/or conclusions.
3. I work hard to present the best facts possible without veering off into logical fallacies:

3A. A common fallacy is the ad hominem (at the man) attack. In legal cases, it is often said to argue the facts if they are on your side. If you don't have the facts supporting your case, argue the law if it is on your side. If you have neither the facts or the law, then attack the character of your opponent. Attacking the character of parties on the internet takes several forms such as insults, put downs, attribution of impure motives, etc.

3B. The straw man fallacy is mischaracterizing the essential points of your opponent's position to make it easier to discredit. Often a position is represented as more extreme than it actually is or peripheral issues are exaggerated as if they are essential to the opposing view.

3C. The burden of proof fallacy either shifts the burden of proof or demands a higher level of supporting evidence than is customary in supporting a position in a given field. For example, in criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. In food safety, the burden of proof is often to show that food is safe for consumption. In most other areas of government regulation, the burden of proof is on the government to show compelling evidence that restrictions of individual liberty are both consistent with the US Constitution and necessary for the common good. We should always work to compel the government toward less regulation until compelling evidence is presented in need of more restrictive regulations. "Better safe than sorry" is a manipulative mindset for growing government and infringing liberty.

3D. The bandwagon fallacy suggests that a position must be correct because it has a lot of supporters.

3E. The appeal to authority fallacy suggests that a position must be correct because certain authorities have supported it without due consideration to the soundness of reasoning expressed by the authorities in support of a position.

3F. The appeal to fear suggests the negative consequences for not taking the advocated action overwhelm the weakness of the actual case supporting the advocated action.

There are lots of other logical fallacies that tend to detract from the productivity of discussions, but these are the prominent ones I've seen here. I won't pretend to be perfect in carrying out discussions, but I think if we work together we might improve our helping each other to reach common goals (catch more fish!) by working harder to implement these guidelines for improved civility and discourse.

well said

[swamp snorkler]

Got any Cliff Notes?

Originally Posted by MathGeek

There are days on the forum when there is a lot of less useful information and a lot of wasted bandwidth. Here are some of my guiding principles for better discussion:

1. I try and distinguish between what I know from firsthand observation, what I know from reliable (usually published) sources, and what I "heard somewhere."
2. I try and clearly communicate my confidence level in information and/or conclusions.
3. I work hard to present the best facts possible without veering off into logical fallacies:

3A. A common fallacy is the ad hominem (at the man) attack. In legal cases, it is often said to argue the facts if they are on your side. If you don't have the facts supporting your case, argue the law if it is on your side. If you have neither the facts or the law, then attack the character of your opponent. Attacking the character of parties on the internet takes several forms such as insults, put downs, attribution of impure motives, etc.

3B. The straw man fallacy is mischaracterizing the essential points of your opponent's position to make it easier to discredit. Often a position is represented as more extreme than it actually is or peripheral issues are exaggerated as if they are essential to the opposing view.

3C. The burden of proof fallacy either shifts the burden of proof or demands a higher level of supporting evidence than is customary in supporting a position in a given field. For example, in criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. In food safety, the burden of proof is often to show that food is safe for consumption. In most other areas of government regulation, the burden of proof is on the government to show compelling evidence that restrictions of individual liberty are both consistent with the US Constitution and necessary for the common good. We should always work to compel the government toward less regulation until compelling evidence is presented in need of more restrictive regulations. "Better safe than sorry" is a manipulative mindset for growing government and infringing liberty.

3D. The bandwagon fallacy suggests that a position must be correct because it has a lot of supporters.

3E. The appeal to authority fallacy suggests that a position must be correct because certain authorities have supported it without due consideration to the soundness of reasoning expressed by the authorities in support of a position.

3F. The appeal to fear suggests the negative consequences for not taking the advocated action overwhelm the weakness of the actual case supporting the advocated action.

There are lots of other logical fallacies that tend to detract from the productivity of discussions, but these are the prominent ones I've seen here. I won't pretend to be perfect in carrying out discussions, but I think if we work together we might improve our helping each other to reach common goals (catch more fish!) by working harder to implement these guidelines for improved civility and discourse.

[bmac]

Giant walls of text are tough for office fisherman to read. Short posts are easier to sneak peeks at between spurts of work.

[jchief]

Originally Posted by bmac

Giant walls of text are tough for office fisherman to read. Short posts are easier to sneak peeks at between spurts of work.

LMAO:*****:

[Lake Chuck Duck]

Originally Posted by bmac

Giant walls of text are tough for office fisherman to read. Short posts are easier to sneak peeks at between spurts of work.

Yes, most miserable thing I ever had to read lol. Lots of small text on a computer screen is tough on the eyes, throw in too much technical lingo and probably won't make it to the end.

[Gottogo49]

Well put, a similar lact of Multivariant Analysis led Al Gore's to his solution for global warming: People are driving their cars more, cars produce CO2 which is a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gases produce global warming: therefore we must reduce your driving. There are fewer big trout being caught, the limit of trout was reduced, therefore the reduced limit caused fewer big trout so increase the limit. Maybe, but there are a lot more variables and I'll bet it is a lot more complex than that. Just my 2c.

[TheLongRun]

The way I have heard the phrase used is "if the facts aren't on your side, argue the law. If the law isn't on your side, argue the facts. If you have neither the law or the facts on your side, pound the podium."

The podium pounding is the most entertaining option though.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by bmac

Giant walls of text are tough for office fisherman to read. Short posts are easier to sneak peeks at between spurts of work.

I understand that pithy insults, flawed assertions, and fallacious sound-bites are easier than fact-filled, well-reasoned discourse.

More inquisitive minds who have time and interest will request that the subtleties be discussed more thoroughly and that some facts are further explored. Minds that are more rushed desire more of an executive summary to see if digging deeper is warranted when time permits.

I hope we all can resist the visceral satisfaction of generating heat rather than light at moments when we don't have sufficient time for more meaningful contributions.

[simplepeddler]

there are some mighty big words being used here...........
can you guys dumb it down for me?

[weedeater]

Originally Posted by simplepeddler

there are some mighty big words being used here...........
can you guys dumb it down for me?

No lie, I like Mathgeek and the post are very informative but I am working with a high school education here..... I feel like I do at work when an engineer tries to explain a simple problem that he has complicated

["W"]

MathGeek is way over qualified for saltycajun...


Good post dude your right

[southern151]

I find that pics of barely clothed women(hot ones!!) work best for my internet discussions...Certainly better than some kinda leegil stuph!

[simplepeddler]

Originally Posted by southern151

I find that pics of barely clothed women(hot ones!!) work best for my internet discussions...Certainly better than some kinda leegil stuph!

most discussions can be turned or resurected with a perfectly timed post of boobies..............

[mr crab]

Originally Posted by simplepeddler

most discussions can be turned or resurected with a perfectly timed post of boobies..............

True dat

[ckinchen]

Originally Posted by southern151

I find that pics of barely clothed women(hot ones!!) work best for my internet discussions...Certainly better than some kinda leegil stuph!

Yep, he is right but I have to read SEC ruling and new technical derivative literature on a daily basis. When I come to the net I like a nice short post. I stopped reading his post, they are great and all but way to long and make me feel like I am at work. I like that he continues to post because some people like that much details and we should have something for everyone.
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Just being honest.[/SIZE]

[meaux fishing]

Originally Posted by ckinchen

When I come to the net I like a nice short post. I stopped reading his post, they are great and all but way to long and make me feel like I am at work. I like that he continues to post because some people like that much details and we should have something for everyone.
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Just being honest.[/SIZE]

X2

I don't feel like every time I post I need to let everybody know how smart I am

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by meaux fishing

I don't feel like every time I post I need to let everybody know how smart I am

Isn't this what is happening when discussions degenerate to every post trying to come up with a better insult than the last?

I apologize if my posts have come across poorly. I'm a MathGeek, not a communications expert. I am working on improvement and appreciate input.

I think we can all do a few things to improve:

1. Stop the insults and stop repeating past transgressions of others. These generate all heat and no light.

2. Take the time to patiently explain once again subtle points that may have been missed by new participants.

3. Be quick to overlook offenses and do not ascribe to malice that which may be attributable to more pure motives.

4. Keep the discourse to facts and do not stoop to judging the motives of others.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I understand that pithy insults, flawed assertions, and fallacious sound-bites are easier than fact-filled, well-reasoned discourse.

More inquisitive minds who have time and interest will request that the subtleties be discussed more thoroughly and that some facts are further explored. Minds that are more rushed desire more of an executive summary to see if digging deeper is warranted when time permits.

I hope we all can resist the visceral satisfaction of generating heat rather than light at moments when we don't have sufficient time for more meaningful contributions.

What have you done with our RATDOG??????????????
Very good post MG

[LPfishnTIM]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Isn't this what is happening when discussions degenerate to every post trying to come up with a better insult than the last?

I apologize if my posts have come across poorly. I'm a MathGeek, not a communications expert. I am working on improvement and appreciate input.

I think we can all do a few things to improve:

1. Stop the insults and stop repeating past transgressions of others. These generate all heat and no light.

2. Take the time to patiently explain once again subtle points that may have been missed by new participants.

3. Be quick to overlook offenses and do not ascribe to malice that which may be attributable to more pure motives.

4. Keep the discourse to facts and do not stoop to judging the motives of others.

I can agree, overcoming pride and prejudice on the internet, doesn't happen easily! the facts are anyone can write just about anything without real consequences of there actions. I think people really do show some of there character on the internet, which in real life people may never question there integrity.