Tweet
Originally posted by Sid Belzberg
View Post
-
And what purpose would 'agreement' serve, anyway? After all, we are not in a Democratic Marxism society (thankfully) where there has to be an agreement on every aspect of our complex lives which everyone has to acknowledge and abide by (in other words, a myriad of unnecessary and often contradictory laws, helping only the lying lawyers)… -
Hi Sid & Dilip:
1. By "consensus" do you both mean what I want to reach for "SOME" Statements, "general acceptance by the majority of a group"? I say time and time again ad nauseam that I do not seek "unanimity" (Though that is nice to achieve when possible).
2. If yes, why are the two of you against a group managing to reach, for SOME Statements, general acceptance? The Statements are definitely enlightening to those with little knowledge of the issue. I have sent friends of mine the various lists of various Statements, and the unanimous result has been: "These Statements are great!" and "Keep these projects going!" Yes it takes both time and effort to compose these Statements. Are you both saying that the groups that have adopted the Conversation Format are just wasting their time? That they should never have adopted it? That the Statements the groups, through sweat and tears, have made, are not worth the pixels to show them on any monitor?
3. Intelligently composed generally accepted Statements, with scientific sources, have nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with science. And people are sorting out which scientists are doing real science, and which scientists are prostrating themselves to some ideology.
4. We'd be making some fu*king progress " in both the pandemic and climate change in the wider public discourse [Sid's words]" if they adopted TCFP instead of both sides just yelling at each other, and demonstrating against each other with sloganeering placards.
Bob A (As Participant and originator of "The Conversation Format Protocol (TCFP)")Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Saturday, 26th August, 2023, 11:42 AM.Comment
-
Hi Dilip:
Some little questions...........
So..........Libertarians fight for freedoms.......and, especially free speech? Right?
BUT.........
Libertarians believe that Pargat Perrer (And maybe others who the Libertarians determine to be trolls) should, in this CT thread on negative climate change:
1. Have his posts retroactively deleted/with no right to post in the future - reason - his posts never make any valid contribution, he is only trying to cause trouble, and always is just wasting the time of this CT group?
2. Be banned from the CT negative climate change thread forever (Even if other CT'ers in the group, and elsewhere on CT, believe he sometimes does have legitimate contributions)?
3. Have his membership in CT revoked, and be forever banned from rejoining?
Dilip....do you see nothing wrong with this picture?
If you are not saying this, then please be more concise in your posts, and advise us what you do mean re the participation in groups of individuals who someone considers a "troll" (And I have seen you operate quite independently of Sid, at times).
Bob A (Somewhat surprised CT'er, who just contributed time and effort to compile a good set of STATEMENTS on Libertarianism, which generally imply good intentions on the part of this particular political philosophy)
Comment
-
Bob, if 2 support a statement using only opinions, and 1 opposes it (also using opinions), as in the issue of weather Libertarianism would lead to more court-time or less, would that 'agreement' (your consensus) by the majority mean anything worthwhile to anyone?Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View PostComment
-
No. These three actions would be reasonable only in a system we now have (a strange mix of Capitalism, Socialism bordering on Marxism, and neo-Fascism). In Libertarianism all what a troll would end up with is paying an appropriate compensation to those whose 'process' (like your statements-building effort) they disrupt with deliberately non-sensical (hence called trolling) arguments...Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View PostLast edited by Dilip Panjwani; Saturday, 26th August, 2023, 12:20 PM.Comment
-
The Attempt to Ferret Out "Truth/Fact"
Dilip Panjwani - Post # 1699 - 23/8/26
(Edited slightly) "[A member of our CT Group proposes a Statement, with Reasons, that they believe to be generally accepted on negative climate change [or the issue could be, for example, whether Libertarianism would lead to more court-time or less]. One person supports the Statement with Reasons. One person Challenges the Statement.] Result: 2 persons in the group (Proposer and Supporter) support the Statement, using only "opinions"; 1 person opposes the Statement (also using opinions). Question: Would that speaking up by the two supporters (The majority) mean anything worthwhile to anyone?"
My Response
You have defined their Reasons as "opinions". This is very ambiguous.
It is generally accepted in science that all "Fact Statements" [ E.g. Unicorns exist] are simply what we believe to be true at this date. We have drawn this conclusion based on all available scientific and experiential evidence we have been able to gather together. Such Statements are always tentative - open to challenge as new inconsistent data emerges. But their main characteristic is that they are extensively "evidence-based". So we call these Statements, with the evidence as Reasons, "Statements of Fact".
"Opinion" is quite different.
Definition - https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/ - "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."
So you are maintaining that all CT'er Statements/Reasons are mere "opinion". You hold that we CT'ers never research, have no expertise, don't go to scientific sources, and have neither fact nor knowledge when we say something. Basically we are ignoramuses blathering words together, meaning nothing.
I can only ask that you look at your elitism.
The Work of this CT Negative Climate Change Group
The Statements we have produced on negative climate change have been lauded by a number of my friends as "great" and "keep the process going". I guess they also know nothing, and it is just "opinion".....no facts or knowledge there....nope!
Bottom Line - CT'ers in our group often compose very good scientific Statements of Fact (Not just mere opinions).
[Note: Sid's Statements and Supporting Reasons have to be broken into parts, given the character limitation for a post on CT, given they are so extensive. I may think he is using bad scientific research, or that he is misinterpreting it. But I do believe that Sid believes his Statements are "Statements of Fact" (Not just mere opinion). He is a good researcher and uses many citations of his sources. He castigates me regularly for ignoring his "factual information". As a matter of fact, I often assume Sid's facts are correct, and if so, I usually see this as problematic, since we are often on opposite sides of an issue. The task is how to position facts, what is the context, are they complete, are they significant on the issue in play, etc?]
Bob A (As Participant)
Comment
-
The Outlier
Dilip Panjwani - Post # 1700 - 23/8/26
"In Libertarianism all what a troll would end up with is paying an appropriate compensation to those whose 'process' (like your statements-building effort) they disrupt with deliberately non-sensical (hence called trolling) arguments..."
My Response
I am a Democratic Marxist. I like to believe I am not a troll, but a contributor to my society.
I have very many detractors in society........I have been called "The Scourge of the Earth". I have been accused of being unnecessarily disruptive by making both Statements of Fact and Statements of Opinion. I have been told talking to me is a waste of time......I am a waste of space
. My Statements have on occasion been deemed "deliberately nonsensical" (I come within your definition of a "troll").
In the current Capitalist society of Canada, fortunately, I do have free speech, and I am entitled to march to my own drummer. I have never had a court case launched against me for my speech or writing (No Libel [Published]; No Slander [Oral]).....not yet anyway..........though my Fb page just got a warning from Mark that somehow my TRN group is breaching Fb Standards ????
It sounds like under a Libertarian government, I am going to be making all kinds of "compensation payments" to my peers (sigh) who believe that I am harming them, somehow, and that the Natural Law is not going to protect me.
Bob AComment
-
Bob,Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
There are always reasons behind opinions (unless one is trolling). But still opinions could be wrong or non-determinable. So you cannot say that two persons having some opinion should be 'accepted' as an 'agreement' (consensus, in your terms), ignoring the possibly correct opinion of the minority of one person....
This is why Sid also wishes to step back... despite your truly sincere efforts on this process.Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Saturday, 26th August, 2023, 01:56 PM.Comment
-
And this guy wants us to have a single Natural Law! The application of which would require ..... concensus? But Lordy Lordy, we cannot HAVE concensus!Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post
ROFLMAOComment
-
And this troll argues irrelevantly just for the sake of arguing, and cannot even spell consensus.Originally posted by Pargat Perrer View Post
Maybe he is the only one who does not agree with the Natural Law... not surprising, as he is simply trolling...Comment
-
Originally posted by Pargat Perrer
And this guy wants us to have a single Natural Law! The application of which would require ..... concensus? But Lordy Lordy, we cannot HAVE concensus!
ROFLMAO
Says the guy who cannot spell "whether" (post 1699 in this thread).Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post
But I, unlike Dilip, do not ascribe magical powers to correct spelling. We all know languages are difficult at best.
As for "argues irrelevantly", is it really irrelevant to argue how Natural Law is AGREED UPON? Especially when it is going to be the the one thing that guides everyone's lives under a hypothetical Libertarian regime?
Come on, Dilip, can you be any more ridiculous? You already said Natural Law is a consensus of Judges and police. But then in another post responding to Bob A., you say there can be NO CONSENSUS!
(Your post #1703 in this thread)
Again .... ROFLMAO
Just admit it Dilip .... you are steamrolled! You are the laughingstock of this thread! LOL
Comment
-
The Nature of "Opinion"
We are having definitional cross-discussions I fear, Dilip. I think that we may actually be rather close in our views on this, but we're having trouble communicating. OR maybe we just have here some fundamental disagreement. Let's try again........
Dilip Panjwani - Post # 1703 - 23/8/26 - "There are always reasons behind opinions (unless one is trolling)."
"Opinion" - Definition -
noun- a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
- https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/
You say that "Opinions" always have "Reasons" behind them. Using the two definitions above, this is an impossible position. Someone with evidence and someone without evidence declare something. If there are Reasons given that marshal the evidence supporting the Statement, then it is a "fact" (Of course, always open to future Challenge). But what is the case for the one without evidence. We examine the Reasons looking for clear facts in support......BUT the "Reasons" clearly do not give sufficient evidence to support the Statement! We say then that the person is "entitled to their opinion".......in other words........you don't convince me that you are making a factual/true statement on the evidence you are providing. What you have put forward is merely your opinion, not a "Generally Accepted Statement.
In our Conversation Format, the whole goal is to see whether the majority in a group accept that the Reasons given (The Evidence) do indeed, support the Statement sufficiently to designate it a "Statement of Fact", not just one of opinion.
Does this help in our understanding each other, Dilip?
Bob AComment
-
Whether a Statement is True?
Dilip Panjwani - Post # 1703 - 23/8/26
"opinions could be wrong or non-determinable. So you cannot say that two persons having some opinion should be 'accepted' as an 'agreement' (consensus, in your terms), ignoring the possibly correct opinion of the minority of one person...."
Response
Statements of Fact - these may be true, in the sense that the majority accepts them as such in the present. But they must be always open to challenge (Scientists are clear on this.......a statement of fact is always "tentative" - evidence may come up tomorrow that disproves the statement - as happened when we all were sure of the Statement: The Earth is flat). So in this sense, a Statement of Fact may indeed be FALSE........but the universe must unfold further for this to be established.
Statements of Opinion - this is where the majority does not agree that the person's statement is sufficiently defended as fact by the evidence then being marshalled. So we say "S/he is entitled to his/her opinion (Even though it is as of yet "unproven", and most likely is wrong, based on the majority's view of what is needed in evidence to agree to it). But it may be by serendipity that the Statement is in fact TRUE, but the evidence still has to come forward in the future, to be sufficient for the majority to accept it as true. It is true that some people have very good intuition - they instinctively know that something is true, but they just can't get the evidence together to prove it to the majority. But until they do so, theirs is not a Statement of Fact, but a Statement of opinion.
The Conversation Format
If two people "agree" that some Statement is true (A Statement of Fact), we do not have an open "consensus" when the group numbers 40 people, as here.
"Consensus" - Definition - Wikipedia
What consensus is Not
"1. Not a majority vote
Consensus is not a majority vote. Every opinion counts. Consensus accounts for dissent and addresses it, although it does not always accommodate it. An option preferred by 51% of people is generally not enough for consensus. An option that is narrowly preferred is almost never consensus.
A vote may help to organize discussion around specific proposals, but this can sometimes breed conflict and division. One problem with a yes-or-no vote on a proposal is that there may be a consensus for a middle option. Even a "middle ground" option can be insufficient, as forcing people to choose between options may prevent new ideas from coming forward that would gain more support. Another problem with voting is that it might prevent a real discussion, as voters do not have to justify their position. This prevents people from evaluating the underlying reasons for a vote, and criticizing weak or inaccurate reasoning for a vote. It also prevents people from coming up with alternative ways to satisfy the voter's concern, with a less divisive course of action.
The best way to determine consensus is to actually read and understand each person's arguments, even if they are divided on the surface. A consensus can be found by looking for common ground and synthesizing the best solution that the group can achieve at that time.
2. Not unanimity
Consensus is not the same as unanimity. Every discussion should involve a good faith effort to hear and understand each other. However, after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best. Sometimes a rough consensus is enough to move forward.
Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process. If someone knows that the group cannot move forward without their consent, they may harden their position in order to get their way. This is considered unacceptable on Wikipedia as a form of gaming the system, as well as tendentious editing. There is even a three revert rule to limit efforts to stonewall the editing process.
Editors should make a good faith effort to reach a consensus. That means that the dissenting party has to state how the current proposal fails to meet the interests of the wider group, rather than merely stating they will not accept it. But after a good faith discussion, sometimes the dissenting party must consent to move forward even if they disagree with the specific course of action.
Not all or nothing
If the group can identify areas of agreement, they should move forward where the group shares the same view. A complicated dispute might involve several issues, and some issues may be more controversial than others. But a disagreement on one issue should not prevent consensus on another issue. It is not helpful to expect complete and total agreement on every aspect of the dispute. Work with the issues where there is common ground, and revisit the lingering issues later if necessary.
3. Not permanent
Consensus can change. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and changes are sometimes reasonable. When challenging an old consensus, it may help to explain what you think has changed in that time.
What "Consensus" IS!
Consensus is the community resolution when opposing parties set aside their differences and agree on a statement that is agreeable to all, even if only barely."
Our CT'er Group
Consensus is NOT what we are trying to achieve........we almost always have one person, at least, for whom no Statement on the issue is acceptable [Or the "Consensus" Statement is such an obvious no-brainer that the effort to get consensus has been a waste of time.]
We want to produce a Statement that is "generally accepted", that is accepted by majority vote. But we do have the problem of non-participation (Some only wish to view and learn; they do not want to engage in public discussion, which is forever archived). So if only 3 out of 40 vote, what do we do? We use the principle that if you object, BUT SAY NOTHING, the group is entitled to assume that you DO AGREE with the majority of those who voted [If you don't speak up, the problem is of your own making].
I hope this clears up that "Consensus" is not what I want, or what the group wants, to achieve.
Bob A (As Group Secretary)Comment
-
Everyone on chesstalk realizes and many have even stated it that your comments, almost always silly, are not welcome on chesstalk.Originally posted by Pargat Perrer View PostComment
Comment