Thinkers Guild of Alderaan

[Litofsky]

Don't worry. I've got to hold off on letting my parents know that half of their beliefs are... whacked. They expect me to follow their orders to the letter, and any act of 'questioning' is punished (not literally, but with verbal 'warnings'). It's quite annoying, but I manage to get around it.

 

But, I agree: Let's not turn this Guild into a rant about parents.

[Arcesious]

Yes, a debate for another time, perhaps... Maybe in the ASC? It would be an interesting discussion. I never did get around to making that 'logical fallacies thread'... Maybe I'll do that in Kavar's, and the 'parents debate' in ASC, as a debate such as that, IMO, would not be serious enough for Kavar's.

 

This will not turn into a rant, but: isn't it annoying when a parent says that no matter what you say, they're right, and you're wrong? I once debated a bit with my mother over a common issue (gay marriage), and she had the nerve to say: "I'm right even if I'm wrong and you're right, because I'm in charge."

 

Ahem... Well... I better stop before that goes over four sentences of ranting... One last thing: The Socratic method does tend to help me a lot, though.

[jonathan7]

See this post for my thoughts on the matter; http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2473335&postcount=2

[Litofsky]

Quite. I don't care if your heterosexual or homosexual. As long as your don't start imposing your views on me, I'll leave you to your business.

 

Anyways, I was having a similar debate with my Mom about religious school. I explained that it was, essentially, a baby-sitting service, albeit much more expensive. We learned almost nothing of our religion, which was annoying, considering we were paying for it. When I told her this, I was chastised for not 'accepting' my 'religious education.'

 

I explained this to my Dad, who agreed, and told my Mom. After that, my Mom apologized, despite the fact that the entire matter could have been avoided if she had listened to me, instead of bringing out her authority on me.

 

Anyways, I prefer to use 'induction' when dealing with my problems, or when I want to look at things from a different point of view. It's really useful, especially when I disagree with someone.

[Arcesious]

Ah yes... Many people, including parents, love to try to get people to fall for the 'appeal to authority' logical fallacy, when in argument over sensitive issues. I see the thread I made in ASC has gotten no replies... (Edit: Nevermind. Now it is...) It's not a very hot topic, I guess. Hmm... Since we don't want to turn this into a guild about parents, how about, we discuss about common logical fallacies/cognitive biases we see in debates with others? That seems to be where this discussion we're having is going.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

[Litofsky]

Much thanks for the links, Arc. I have, as of late, been debating with one of my friends about George Bush (the 43rd President, not the 41st). Anyways, she says that Bush is doing the best he can with what he can, and that he is doing a lot to research Alternative Fuels. To this, I say, "Poo-poo."

 

Bush has, according to Wikipedia, which links to several other sites, Bush has a historic low with 19% Approval Ratings. Either way, most of the Country does not like the President. If we have the ability to remove a Governor, why not a President?

 

Anyways, I've pointed out multiple 'openings' in her defense, but I'll have to bring up the conversation with her tomorrow in order to remember my argument (it's a spontaneous thing, our conversations are ).

[Arcesious]

I've studied such things like that, in preparation for whenever it happens that I will eventually have to tell the truth of my beleifs to my parents. That way, when they try all the the typical things, I'll politely point out some of those things in those links, and attempt avoid further argument, as it is not my intention to go into all-out conflict over this with them. I hope to be able to keep this up until I move out of the house...

 

I've also found myself using numerous of these fallacies and biases in debates, and now, I try not to. But sometimes, I do slip up in trying to avoid that, as in the recent Evolution/Creationism education debate in Kavar's. There's a lot of fallacies and biases that are so easy to fall into using, and let me tell you, it's really hard to avoid them all. There's so many of them...

 

When it all gets down to it, it gets very complex and confusing when trying too make my own debate points without using a single one of those fallacies/biases. Pretty much, it's almost impossible to avoid. But many of these instances in debates where I see this often go unnoticed because they're so subtle and lesser-known/realized. I'm currenty trying to memorize all the Ad hominem fallacies, but it's hard when the fallacies are referred to in another language...

 

All in all, I'd rather avoid pointing out the more complex, unnoticed, and confusing fallacies/biases in debates, as they are, well... confusing, and I'm guilty of using them too, so if I pointed them out among others, I'd be a hypocrite.

 

Sometimes, I wonder if we're too smart for our own good... But, eh, when I get a little older, and my brain's more developed, perhaps I'll be able to concentrate better on such things, and be a super debater, like Achilles.

[Litofsky]

(Since I'm not finding the 'Quote' Button, I will respond to Arc.'s comments by numbering the paragraphs)

 

5) Yes, Achilles is a supreme debater. Perhaps he'll give us lessons?

 

1) I have the same issue. I don't want to tell my parents all of my ideals, mainly because I don't want to upset them. I wonder if this is a wise move, on my part.

 

2) Perhaps you should create a thread about fallacies, and how people come to accept them as truth? That would generate a bit of 'steam,' I'd think.

 

3) You should point them out. That way, we all will realize our errors and enter into a new way of thought.

 

Anyways, I just realized that I am enjoying the thread very much! I hope we continue to have these types of conversations here.

[Arcesious]

5) I would be eager to learn if he did...

 

1) Wise, indeed, IMO. I'd rather not deal with all the problems that would come if my parents knew certain things about me, whilst I'm still under their authority.

 

2) Problem is, I honestly don't know what to say in the thread if I made it.

 

3) I'm honestly too lazy to do so. I rarely make posts that take me over five minutes to type. Posts critiquing such things in every debate I go to would take a very long time to compose, and would be quite rude and annoying. Also, the fallacies and biases I oftentimes see are minor, and most of the time those minor things do not seem to control the outcome of a debate in a way that the debate could end up in an incorrect conclusion, here on Lucasforums, which why I do not mention them.

 

Frankly, I think I'd need help making the thread.

[Totenkopf]

I suppose there are a couple of ways you could approach it. You could provide a list of fallacies you think you've noticed in various threads (here or elsewhere) and ask people which ones they think they run into most often and how they deal with it. In the case of this forum, you could omit the identity of the offending party (from your pov) and just quote the statement and explain why it falls under the fallacy you think it does. This would have the virtue of not personalizing your argument. Simply listing all the fallacies would be a very dry approach, a "catalog of ships", as the expression goes (a link or more listing them would seem sufficient). just a few ideas

[Arcesious]

Not intended as a 'bump', but, are we going to talk about something scientific or philosophical here again? I haven't seen a new comment for awhile... I'm not suggesting to continue on the logical falacies and whatnot discussion... Does anyone have an idea for something interesting to talk about? :?:

 

I come here every day hoping to learn some new cool fact from the smart people.

[Litofsky]

Alright. How about the future of the world? Will we ever colonize another planet, and if so, will it be in an effort of self-preservation? Or, for once, will the world come together in an effort to spread our species before Earth's resources run out?

 

We don't have to discuss this, necessarily, but it's intended to wake us from our summer-slumber.

[mur'phon]

Summer slumber? Summer slumber? You try to slumber when the sun won't go down:P

But if the rest of you is in need of waking we could pherhaps take on one of the worlds questions with no nice answers like Chechenya, Iraq or Palestine?

[Arcesious]

I think that, if we don't do anything rash, we will go far enough to colonize other planets, at least partially. The Moon and Mars will probably be what we start at. It's a radical idea I have, but, could it be possible to 'mine' the gases off of gas planets, and somehow transform those gases into elements vital for life, which coudl be used for terraforming and colonizing planets? Such as water, C02, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc, etc? I'm no chemist, so I don't know.

 

Chechenya and the conflict between Isreal and Palestine would be interesting discussions. I think we've talked enough about Iraq in threads in Kavar's to not need to discuss it here.

[Litofsky]

Palestine sounds like an interesting place to start. Perhaps if the United Nations was correct in giving land to form Israel? Or if the Palestinians are wrong to keep asking for more land? Is there a side to take in this argument, or is it best left untouched?

 

Anyways, I'd rather not start a religious argument, so perhaps we should stay with terraforming? I'm not a scientist, but if I were to start terraforming Mars, for instance, I would start by seeing if I could warm the climate up in any way. Something to get water to stay on the surface (although, that would require an atmosphere, now wouldn't it?), and then bringing plants over to help take in carbon dioxide and create a breathable atmosphere.

 

Again, I'm no expert, but that's how I would start.

[Rev7]

You see, terraforming takes hundreds of years. Would there even be enough time to do something like that?

 

As for the mining part~ It is a good idea, but it would take a lot of money to do something like that. Think about it, building (purchasing) lots of rockets to shoot the material for mining operations, building (purchasing) lots of rockets for building rockets on Mars, and then finding a way to get the material safely back on Earth. It would take a lot! I do think that it is a good idea though.

 

As for trying to colonize other planets, would be quite hard. Other than the possiblity of the Moon and Mars, I don't think that it would be all that do-able. The conditions are just so extreme for human life, and Jupiter, Neptune, Uranus, and Saturn are the gas giants. I don't think that they could/will be colonized.

[Arcesious]

We could just do everything they've done in the various Startrek shows. Warp engines, transporters, phasers, and all...

 

But, in seriousness, If terraformign the entire atmosphere is next-to-impossible, perhaps creating an artificial atmosphere & enviroment underground could work? Artificial sunlight for plants, airtight areas, controllable weather... Underground cities on the moon do solve the problem of meteorites, solar winds and various other things. And, as far as I know, the moon doesn't have tectonic activity. It's a great place for mining metal too. Same with Mars. Lot's of nickel, iron, and such. Terraforming on such a scale would require a much more developed and powerful industry on earth though.

 

However, Titan seems to be the more likely possible candidate of all of these planets/moons.

[Litofsky]

"Paraterraforming." Isn't that what I suggested a while back? I am, more or less, concerned not with whether or not something is impossible or not (the only limit is one's imagination), but whether we will be able to find another world in time. It's no secret that the world will run out of resources. My question is: "Will we be able to make it to another world, terraformed or not, by the time Earth's resources are depleted?"

 

It's a rather ominous question, but one I feel should not be ignored.

[Rev7]

That is a very good question actually. However, I don't think that anyone could answer it of course.

[Arcesious]

I'm sure our great and trustworthy leaders would take us civilians along if and when it comes to that. [/sarcasm]

 

Either I'm overly cynical right now, or I have a feeling that it'll be survival of the fittest by the time I'm a senior. (One of the reasons I watch survival shows and such every day...)

 

Humanity will persevere throughout everything, I beleive, but I'm afraid that where we're headed right now, humanity will regrow slowly after a huge disaster and/or war...

 

Living in space or on another planet is a lot more complicated than it sounds... We're not phyisically adaptive enough to adapt under a massive change in barometric pressure and gas balances. Perhaps human babies born on a different planet would be able to adapt to it, but we, who have lived on earth all our lives, are not.

[mur'phon]

Arc: You know that humanity was all but eradicated once in (very aincent) history. Countless species have become extinct, why not us?

As for us not adapting, why would we need to, the astro/cosmonauts have been doing fine without being adapted to open space.

My personal oppinion is that we should stop spending insane amounts of cash looking at the stars and rather use it down on earth where it is needed.

 

Lit: read a bit about the conflict, religion plays a minnor role, and unless we have any zionists among us, it should be easy to awoid a religious discussion.

[Totenkopf]

Mur'phon: actually, when you look at the size of economies, monies spent on space are almost nonexistant. We've spent >$5-6 trillion on "poverty" in this country over the last 40 years and it's only really increased in scope or perhaps remained static at best. If you take the pov that we should ignore things like space exploration till humanity is "fixed", we'll be stuck here pretty much forever......or "fixed" will require a very loose definition.

[mur'phon]

First, I don't think being stuck here is such a bad thing, second, I believe a lot of the money spent on poverty is spent on the wrong things. Besides, imagine if the money spent on space exploration instead where used to develop a cure for malaria/aids/tuberculosis etc

[Litofsky]

I respect that you think we should be spending money on things other than space exploration, but when most of our resources run out (i.e., oil, natural gas, coal), and we haven't researched widespread ways to use green energy, we're going to be in serious trouble.

 

However, I am, more or less, in the boat with Arcesious. Humanity will, without restriction, overpopulate the planet (again, this ties in with terraforming other planets, or finding other planets suitable for life). Let's say that there are 1,000,000 people in "City "X"" in 2000. Let us also say that each couple has four children. In one generation (say, twenty years) , the population, in 2020, will have doubled to 2,000,000.

 

Now, if we put that into modern terms, we have 6,000,000,000 people on this planet (approximately). If ever couple has two kids, within one generation, we will jump to 12,000,000,000.

 

So, to my point. If we continue reproducing at the current rate, our supply of resources, such as gas and food, will not be able to support the population. I'm not sure what will come of that, should it happen, but nations will be stretched to the breaking point.

 

Of course, this is all speculation, but we can see that unrestricted breeding has the capability to bring our planet to its knees.

 

Looking over that, it sounds quite cynical, doesn't it?

[mur'phon]

What's easier, traveling to another planet, terraforming/making a mining station, getting it all back to earth or green energy?

 

As for your Malthusian doom scenario, I'm not too worried. Look at fertility rates across the world, in poor countries with high mortality rates, they are high. Industrial countries where mortality rates are low, fertility rates are also low. Look at most of Europe/Japan/"white America" where the birth rate is 1.8 or lower, well below the number required for the population to remain stable (2.1). Once a country moves from U to I, population briefly rises, after that imigration is what causes the growth.

So in short, no I cant see that unrestricted breedin can bring us to our knees