A Google Groups alternative to rec.aviation.piloting?

On Aug 15, 10:37*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
buttman writes:
I'm criticizing people not backing up their claims with fact.

Yes, you're criticizing people. *That's not a discussion of aviation.

Well this thread really isn't about aviation. This is one of those
meta-threads that pop every once in a while. It is about the group and
the people who are ruining it.

Think of this thread as a sort of "appeals court" for the discussions
that go one here. A place to criticize and analyze the things that go
on behind the discussions.


Statements made by anyone can be evaluated on their own merits, without any
reference to personalities or the people making the statements. *Facts are
facts; falsehoods are falsehoods. *It doesn't matter where they come from.
Statements can be verified by comparison with other sources of known accuracy.
There is never any need to worry about who made the statements.

No disagreement here.

In that post I'm challenging him to back up his claims with fact.

Either he is right, or he is wrong. *The old saw about backing claims up with
facts is just a diversion tactic, and a poor one at that. *If he is wrong,
correct him. *If he is right, let it stand.

Huh? Claims never need to be backed up? Backing up your claims is
analogous to showing your work on a math problem. It shows the
processes you used to come to your conclusion. Dudley made a claim
that I whole heartedly disagree with, so I asked him to "show his
work" to get a better understanding of why he feels that way.


And his reasons for me being the worlds worst instructor I think is very
aviation related.

No, they are personality related. *Exactly the type of thing that you were
criticizing just a few posts ago.

What I was criticizing "a few posts ago", was arguments hinged solely
on character. This tangent that has popped up may be related to
people's character, but you sure won't find me hinging any arguments
solely on someone's character, if thats what you're implying.

buttman wrote in
:

On Aug 15, 10:37*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
buttman writes:
I'm criticizing people not backing up their claims with fact.

Yes, you're criticizing people. *That's not a discussion of aviation.

Well this thread really isn't about aviation.

In your case, that's a public service.


Bertie

buttman writes:

Huh? Claims never need to be backed up? Backing up your claims is
analogous to showing your work on a math problem.

Showing your work is not the same as pointing to a book.

Most people in these situations want the person with whom they disagree to
point to a book or other outside reference. They fully do not expect to get
the reference, which allows them to to claim that the opinion with which they
disagree is baseless. If they get a reference, they claim that the reference
doesn't meet some arbitrary standard of reliability. Overall, it's just a
diversion.

It's also possible to support an argument by simply exposing the reasoning
behind it, proceeding forward from universally accepted premises ("showing
your work"), but in these situations people will not accept this, because they
know that it is hard to refute. They want an outside reference that they hope
they won't get, and they plan to reject the reference if by some chance they
do actually get it. It's much harder to argue with logic, so that is rejected
from the beginning.

It shows the processes you used to come to your conclusion.

Rest assured, most people will not accept the processes, as they don't want to
have their opinion challenged at all. They are not giving you an opportunity
to persuade them, they are simply rejecting summarily and feigning a desire to
let you persuade them. The request for a reference is classic for this
purpose because it's always possible to reject a reference for one reason or
another. That isn't possible if you start with accepted axioms and reason
forward from them.

What I was criticizing "a few posts ago", was arguments hinged solely
on character. This tangent that has popped up may be related to
people's character, but you sure won't find me hinging any arguments
solely on someone's character, if thats what you're implying.

A reqeust for references is also based on character, except it shifts the
target from the person making a particular assertion to the person who was the
source of the reference. Since it is still subjective, it can still be
rejected, which is why so many people use this as a diversion.