Intellectualizing?

Quote:

Magi:
Although in terms of debates, its usually throwing your debate opponent into a loop and setup logical fallacy to have them walk into it. The use of political language in this context usually require almost endless qualifier and clarification. It might not be the best way to get the point across. I remember a guy that came in here and just do this endless, ENDLESS logical argument that doesn’t’t really go anywhere. Was his name Thomas or something?

Did anyone refute my arguments or show me where I was guiding my opponents into positions that they didn't need to take? You might think that the argument produces counter-intuitive results, but that does not negate the force of the argument. If the argument is a bad one, then people should have no problem finding a faulty premise or two. If anything is sophistry, it is the attack upon individuals instead of arguments, and not merely the act of being long-winded.

As for intellectualizing, I think we need to make an additional distinction. I think being precise with language is a virtue and not something at which to be scoffed. We don't complicate issues: most issues are complicated, plain and simple. Complicated issues require complex problem-solving, which requires precise language.

Precision with language seems to be different from political speech, in which we battle over the mere names of phenomena in order to elicit a certain emotional response from the people. Example: are Islamists who blow up buildings 'terrorists' or 'freedom fighters'? The average person hates terrorists, but loves freedom. Whichever side wins the war of words wins the war for popular support. Or, facts are chosen selectively in order to produce polling data which supports a given position.

Precision with language seems different than political speech. For example, the term 'hypothetico-deductive method' is not used to elicit some emotional response, nor is its intrinsic purpose to make a person sound smarter than he really is or to speak nonsense. Instead it aptly names and delineates a commonly understood method of doing science.

Using big words to sound smart is one thing: using precise language is another. But if we do not understand what the person is saying, then how can we judge whether they are merely trying to sound smart or whether they are being precise? ISTM that when one comes across such a person, the best thing to do is to become more informed on the particular issue, learn the terminology, and then re-examine the argument to see whether the person genuinely knew the topic or whether he was deceiving his opposition.

Jam it back in, in the dark.