Field of Science

  • in Life of a Lab Rat
  • in Field Notes
  • in The Curious Wavefunction
  • in inkfish
  • in Disease Prone
  • in Chinleana
  • in Labs
  • in The Large Picture Blog
  • in The Phytophactor
  • in Sex, Genes & Evolution
  • in C6-H12-O6
  • in Skeptic Wonder
  • in Moss Plants and More
  • in Rule of 6ix
  • in A is for Aspirin
  • in Memoirs of a Defective Brain
  • in RRResearch
  • in The Biology Files
  • in The Astronomist
  • in Pleiotropy
  • in Genomics, Medicine, and Pseudoscience
  • in Protein Evolution and Other Musings
  • in The View from a Microbiologist
  • in Angry by Choice
  • in Variety of Life
  • in History of Geology
  • in Catalogue of Organisms
  • in The Greenhouse
  • in PLEKTIX
  • in Doc Madhattan
  • in The Culture of Chemistry
  • in Games with Words

Rules of the game-Argumentation

Why do I like to argue? Ostensibly its because I like to win, but in reality I am interested in the truth or at least the closest approximation to "truth" we can get. If indeed the goal is to reveal truth, then there are rules we need to follow. (Actually this is in-and-of itself a supposition that could be argued. However, I am going to assume that if there are no rules, then truth cannot rationally be identified. This is like the underlying argument of a creationist, if god can just bring everything into being using no rational or understandable rules, then evolution must do the same thing: Thus, we hear the "never seen a dog evolve into a cat" and the "the odds of randomly getting a specific 100 amino acid protein is too great" arguments. These arguments are based on creationist understanding of how god did it, which was ruleless.)

As a primer to understanding argumentation, and to allow me to expand my own education into logic and philosophy I refer you to Dr. Wilkins excellent site Evolving Thoughts and his recent post on "A Code of Conduct for Effective Rational Discussion," and the references therein.

No comments: