How to ask a proper question.

[AirPo]

IOW, the question is not "ill formed" as some claim, there just is not an answer for it, I understand. So why would the person not just say there is no answer to the question as opposed to claiming it to be "ill formed" etc.? Is that nothing more than a deflection, a diversion?

No, the answer is the question actually is ill formed, intentional I'm sure, and was called out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The frequent hostility to questions is interesting, but I doubt it can ever be resolved. There are too many possible reasons for the hostility. It could be simply that a person answers in a hostile manner, but it could also be:
* There is some bad blood between 2 people and the question is not the real source of the hostility
* Once someone's pride is pricked, they might refuse to cooperate and go for "burning" the other person
* The question is asked in a leading, condescending, or hostile manner that makes it difficult to answer nicely
* The person asking or answering is too sensitive to something and infers a hostility that isn't there
* The person asking or answering lacks some social sensitivity and doesn't understand that, for example, words like "ignorant" need to be used carefully

There are probably other reasons as well.

You forgot about the possibility that the person asking the question has asked a question that only demonstrates complete ignorance of the subject at hand. That is usually the cause of the "Your question is badly formed" answer.

 

[Resha Caner]

You forgot about the possibility that the person asking the question has asked a question that only demonstrates complete ignorance of the subject at hand. That is usually the cause of the "Your question is badly formed" answer.

It is certainly a possibility that the person is ignorant, but I'd be hard pressed to think of a situation where it's helpful to say that to them.

I never start off assuming a person's ignorance - even if it seems apparent in what they say. Rather, I ask questions to discern their background, provide them information to try to educate them, and discuss the differences in our views. If the other person locks down and refuses to budge, becomes hostile and starts attacking, or simply doesn't understand what I'm trying to say, I move on - still with the opinion that calling them ignorant isn't going to help.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It it certainly a possibility that the person is ignorant, but I'd be hard pressed to think of a situation where it's helpful to say that to them.

But that is never all that is said. You would have a point if no one tried to help the individual.

I never start off assuming a person's ignorance - even if it seems apparent in what they say. Rather, I ask questions to discern their background, provide them information to try to educate them, and discuss the differences in our views. If the other person locks down and refuses to budge, becomes hostile and starts attacking, or simply doesn't understand what I'm trying to say, I move on - still with the opinion that calling them ignorant isn't going to help.

Then you might as well move on in this case. People have tried to help even though the utter ignorance of the theory has been demonstrated by the OP.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is certainly a possibility that the person is ignorant, but I'd be hard pressed to think of a situation where it's helpful to say that to them.

It's a way of saying that they should go back and learn the basics of what they are talking about. In that sense, it can be very helpful.

 

[Resha Caner]

It's a way of saying that they should go back and learn the basics of what they are talking about. In that sense, it can be very helpful.

Whether or not they are ignorant, it's often taken as an intentional insult. If they need to learn some basics, then cite a resource and tell them they need to learn some basics.

It's the same as using words like fat, ugly, weak, etc. While it may be true, saying it is not helpful. Many people only accept such comments about themselves from those they are close to - or maybe not at all. Saying something that causes them to close their ears blocks the road to a resolution.

I'll be honest. In some cases I think people just like to show that they know what an "ill-formed question" is. They're not really attempting to the help the one who asked the question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whether or not they are ignorant, it's often taken as an intentional insult. If they need to learn some basics, then cite a resource and tell them they need to learn some basics.

It's the same as using words like fat, ugly, weak, etc. While it may be true, saying it is not helpful. Many people only accept such comments about themselves from those they are close to - or maybe not at all. Saying something that causes them to close their ears blocks the road to a resolution.

I'll be honest. In some cases I think people just like to show that they know what an "ill-formed question" is. They're not really attempting to the help the one who asked the question.

It shouldn't be taken as an insult. We are all ignorant on certain areas of knowledge. We may not all be fat or ugly, weak, etc. but no one can know everything.

 

[Resha Caner]

It shouldn't be taken as an insult. We are all ignorant on certain areas of knowledge. We may not all be fat or ugly, weak, etc. but no one can know everything.

Sure, but this is where intent plays a role - as well as choosing your battles. One person can call another ignorant, and then sit back and feel justified; they can blame the other person for taking it as an insult. But if someone's true intent is to help another understand, they'll be aware of the possible reaction to their words and refrain from using language that can be inflammatory.

Then, if a trusting relationship develops, they can later explain peripheral issues like the word "ignorant".

 

[Loudmouth]

Whether or not they are ignorant, it's often taken as an intentional insult. If they need to learn some basics, then cite a resource and tell them they need to learn some basics.

It's the same as using words like fat, ugly, weak, etc. While it may be true, saying it is not helpful. Many people only accept such comments about themselves from those they are close to - or maybe not at all. Saying something that causes them to close their ears blocks the road to a resolution.

I'll be honest. In some cases I think people just like to show that they know what an "ill-formed question" is. They're not really attempting to the help the one who asked the question.

There is a somewhat toxic environment in these types of forums which starts with creationists purposefully misrepresenting science. That is where these types of questions come from. When the person asking the question shows signs of not caring about the answers, or the honesty of the question to begin with, then it can lead to stronger language in response.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure, but this is where intent plays a role - as well as choosing your battles. One person can call another ignorant, and then sit back and feel justified; they can blame the other person for taking it as an insult. But if someone's true intent is to help another understand, they'll be aware of the possible reaction to their words and refrain from using language that can be inflammatory.

Then, if a trusting relationship develops, they can later explain peripheral issues like the word "ignorant".

Once again you are not paying attention. No one has merely pointed out that the other person was ignorant. Why do you keep using that strawman?

 

[Resha Caner]

There is a somewhat toxic environment in these types of forums ...

Agreed.

 

[PsychoSarah]

In that case, why can the answer not be, "it is not known...I have no answer...your question cannot be answered" etc?

Because that doesn't explain why the question can't be answered. Since "species" is a label we apply to organisms and not an inherent aspect of the biology of these organisms, defining the exact moment when a population has crossed from one species into another is impossible to do. It wouldn't matter if you had a time wormhole through which you could acquire specimens from every generation from 50 million years ago to the present and could genetically confirm that they are all a part of the same lineage. Dictating when they transitioned from one species to another would be impossible. It's like looking at a rainbow. You can tell certain parts are distinctly red and others are distinctly orange, but where precisely does red end and orange begin?

Why respond with "your question is malformed", you are too ignorant to ask a question, paraphrased, you need to take a course in biology" etc.?

Probably because anyone that has taken a college course in biology would know that distinguishing exact points of species transitions is a fool's errand. It's neither reasonable to accomplish, nor is it of any worth to do so. One can measure evolution as a process without limiting the scale of the changes in the population over time to be that precise.

However, I think it is highly patronizing to wave away a question on the basis of it revealing ignorance in a subject. -_- who asks questions only on topics they have an extensive background in?

 

[Resha Caner]

Because that doesn't explain why the question can't be answered. Since "species" is a label we apply to organisms and not an inherent aspect of the biology of these organisms, defining the exact moment when a population has crossed from one species into another is impossible to do. It wouldn't matter if you had a time wormhole through which you could acquire specimens from every generation from 50 million years ago to the present and could genetically confirm that they are all a part of the same lineage. Dictating when they transitioned from one species to another would be impossible. It's like looking at a rainbow. You can tell certain parts are distinctly red and others are distinctly orange, but where precisely does red end and orange begin?

Probably because anyone that has taken a college course in biology would know that distinguishing exact points of species transitions is a fool's errand. It's neither reasonable to accomplish, nor is it of any worth to do so. One can measure evolution as a process without limiting the scale of the changes in the population over time to be that precise.

However, I think it is highly patronizing to wave away a question on the basis of it revealing ignorance in a subject. -_- who asks questions only on topics they have an extensive background in?

Thanks. A good post. It is easy to underestimate the difficulty of paradigms, and too often such things are ascribed to malicious intent. It's even more difficult when someone is not looking to make a change, but merely wants to understand a different paradigm. And yet again more difficult if the field of study has itself changed over the years. I admit that it is only recently that I understood how biologists use the term "species".

 

[Job 33:6]

IOW, the question is not "ill formed" as some claim, there just is not an answer for it, I understand. So why would the person not just say there is no answer to the question as opposed to claiming it to be "ill formed" etc.? Is that nothing more than a deflection, a diversion?

The question is somewhat poorly formed. Historic animals are known via the fossil record, and confirmed through genetics. But, as someone said before me, the fossil record doesnt preserve every single species that has ever lived. Otherwise we would be buried in bones. There are only 13 or so full T rex skeletons for example, yet these animals were likely prevalent, and including various species, would number in tens if not hundreds of thousands.

With bovines, or cattle, we have human records of aurochs.
The aurochs (/ˈɔːrɒks/ or /ˈaʊrɒks/; pl. aurochs, or rarely aurochsen, aurochses), also urus, ure (Bos primigenius), is an extinctspecies of large wild cattle that inhabited Europe, Asia, and North Africa. It is the ancestor of domestic cattle. The species survived in Europe until the last recorded aurochs died in the Jaktorów Forest, Poland, in 1627.

Regarding horses, speciation of horses occurred before mankind had written language. There are bones of ancient horses. Were these fossils the direct ancestor to horses or a cousin? Or were they the direct ancestor to the direct ancestor? These are questions that cannot be specifically answered.
Hagerman horse - Wikipedia
Dinohippus - Wikipedia

Whenever you see on the news "missing link" or "we evolved from X species". Really the bones are giving us an idea of how we evolved, but they arent so specific as say, that ancestry website that gives you a detailed family tree. A fossil may be a second cousin, a third cousin. It could be a cousin that went extinct.

So the fossils give a general idea of how life evolved, its just not so precise as to distinguish very specific species.

And this important to understand. Some people do not understand this, and it leads to misconceptions. For example, the tracks that predate tiktaalik by i think what...9 million years or so. People might say, well if tiktaalik is our ancestor and was the first to walk on land, why are there tracks 9 million years before it? Without understanding that tiktaalik was more than likely not a specific ancestor of our own, but rather a closely related organism to our ancestor. And tiktaalik is still an ideal transitonal form, on the basis that it displays transitional morphology in the mid to late devonian, but it shouldnt be assumed that tiktaalik is the transitional form, and that other early tetrapods could not be found immediately before or after it in the mid to late devonian.

 

[Job 33:6]

@tevans9129

It is also important to understand that...well, this is where punctuated equilibrium becomes significant to understand as well.

Some people say, well punctuated equilibrium is in contrast to darwinian gradualism, just read up on steven j goulds work.

But what they dont understand or recognize is that, as others here have said, not every species is fossilized. And what appears to be "punctuated" in the fossil record, does not necessarily equate to "genetic punctuation" in any way that exceeds the explanatory power of gradualism.

So, while your question doesnt make much sense, as others here have pointed out, it is still a good question. It is not a dumb question, because there is actually a lot of depth to the answer and most people wouldnt know how to respond to it. And i think people should have respect for good questions.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It is certainly a possibility that the person is ignorant, but I'd be hard pressed to think of a situation where it's helpful to say that to them.

I can think of plenty of questions where it is helpful, I've encountered frequent occasions in many different boards here on the site where it's been necessary to to address the fact that the question being asked is problematic. A real world example that I can think of off the top of my head would be where I've seen the question asked, "Since the Holy Spirit had sex with Mary, wouldn't that make the Holy Spirit Jesus' father?" That immediately requires unpacking and correction because it indicates a major misunderstanding of a fairly basic Christian teaching. Not all questions are created equal, and questions which are embedded with fallacy (for example, a petitio principii) need to be be countered and addressed.

Having been engaging in debates, discussions, and arguments over numerous topics, particularly theological ones, has frequently involved having to address the nature of the question itself when and where the question is itself problematic.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

There is a somewhat toxic environment in these types of forums which starts with creationists purposefully misrepresenting science. That is where these types of questions come from. When the person asking the question shows signs of not caring about the answers, or the honesty of the question to begin with, then it can lead to stronger language in response.

And unfortunately it can be difficult to discern between legitimate ignorance or being intentionally obtuse.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Resha Caner]

Not all questions are created equal, and questions which are embedded with fallacy (for example, a petitio principii) need to be be countered and addressed.

Addressing the fallacies in a question is different than calling the person ignorant.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Addressing the fallacies in a question is different than calling the person ignorant.

I suspect maybe we are of different perspectives on this, as I don't see ignorance as inherently pejorative. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant, no one can help what they don't know.

-CryptoLutheran