Should we value the gift of prophecy today as Paul and Moses did?

[TruthSeek3r]

As I acknowledged earlier, the term "prejudicial question" is possibly a more precise characterization than loaded question. Which is just semantics, as far as I am concerned, regarding the appropriateness of the question. You're nitpicking.

I agree that the term "prejudicial question" would make more sense from your standpoint, but even granting that term would still be problematic, you would still be accusing me of having already made up my mind with preconceived notions about long exchanges, and that's definitely not the case (hey, I'm pretty sure I know my mind and what I believe better than you do, unless you have psychic abilities or God has given you words of knowledge about my beliefs). And again, none of my questions make prejudicial claims about long exchanges either, so:

• Neither my mind and what I believe supports your accusations (feel free to ask God for a word of knowledge to confirm this),
• nor the question themselves support your accusations.

The only thing that "supports" your accusations is your speculations based on alleged "appearances", which by your own admission might be wrong, and in fact, they are wrong (again, if you don't believe me, feel free to ask God for a word of knowledge about my beliefs regarding long exchanges -- God can certainly read my mind and reveal to you whether I'm telling the truth or not).

Anyway, to investigate the semantics myself, I re-read the Wikepedia article. It states that a loaded question is one example of a complex question. So it now seems the best description is neither "loaded question" nor "prejudicial question" but "complex question" (again, nitpicking of terminology). Wikipedia says that the fault of a complex question is precisely what I've complained about - the question seems skewed in favor of a presupposition or conclusion that, in the eyes of the respondent, seems undesired, unwarranted, or prejudicial.

Again, a complex question (see Complex question - Wikipedia) denotes a question that is complex because it makes multiple claims about reality by way of complex sentences. You can identify these claims by analyzing the structure of the question. Then you can investigate whether these claims are warranted or not for a particular context. So, again, I challenge you to pick one of my questions, analyze it, dissect it, and identify specific claims about reality that are unwarranted.

Secondly, the nitpicking doesn't mitigate my previous complaint that arguing for a week, or accusing me of seeing invisible dragons, is hardly the most appropriate response. Sometimes our words hurt people, or offend them, in unintended ways. Surely the most appropriate response is, "Didn't mean to offend you. Let me rephrase the statement."

Well, if the dragon analogy hurt your feelings, my apologies. It was an illustrative analogy though. It helped to get the point across.

On the other hand, your example analogy with a complex question that presupposes that the worthiness of long exchange is measured by the number of cancer patients that become healed was clearly inappropriate, because I've never asked a complex question in which I presuppose a nonsensical metric like that.

Thirdly, I've already addressed your repeated assertion that your questions were not SPECIFIC to long exchanges.

You are getting it wrong. Of course my questions are specifically about long exchanges. I mean, I literally mentioned the words "long exchanges" in my questions, so of course I'm inquiring about long exchanges.

However, that's NOT the same as saying that I'm making unwarranted claims that are ONLY true for long exchanges. First of all, I haven't made unwarranted claims in my questions. Again, if you believe I did, I invite you to quote one of my alleged "complex questions" and show where an unwarranted claim is stated. Secondly, I NEVER said that the ANSWERS to my questions about long exchanges are only valid for long exchanges. They could be valid for average length exchanges and short exchanges too. There is nothing in my questions that presupposes anything about short exchanges.

I would rather say the one who seems to have prejudices is yourself. You seem to have biases and prejudices in the way you interpret my questions that make you see things which are not there in the semantic and syntactic structure of the questions themselves. And they are nowhere to be found in my mind either. So, what else can I say? You are seeing stuff which is not real.

For example, when I asked you, on what percentage of your threads have you asked the same questions about short exchanges, your response was precisely what I expected - complete silence.

Because that's irrelevant. It's like saying that a Paleontologist, who has a deep preference to study the fossils of dinosaurs, to which he devotes about 98% of his working time, has a prejudice against mammals or birds or bacteria or anything that is not a dinosaur. You are forgetting that, perhaps, he is currently very curious about dinosaurs and wants to learn more about them at this time, but perhaps, in the future, he might shift his focus to fossils from other species, or even pursue a new career with emphasis on studying living species.

Very extended exchanges on topics that are of my interest are rare specimens, so given that I came across one, I didn't want to miss the opportunity to hear about what the protagonists thought about it via asking them questions.

Maybe in the future I might feel curious about the dynamics of short exchanges and feel prompted to ask questions about them, but at this precise moment I don't feel that curiosity. Why am I not curious about short exchanges at this moment? I don't know, I guess you have to ask my subconscious mind. Just like you would need to ask a Paleontologist's subconscious mind why he is not intensively studying other species, or Chemistry, or Participle Physics, or Electronics or other fields.

It's been my experience over the years that when a person closely engaged with me in a debate suddenly refuses to answer a particular question, I've probably touched on a valid point (unless of course, he's explicitly provided an understandable reason for declining to answer).

Sounds like a reasonable heuristic to have, but beware that it's still prone to inductive fallacies.

I documented three apparent references in your questions to long exchanges. If your questions had NOTHING to do with the length of the exchange:

This introduction is already wrong. My questions were very clearly about long exchanges. In fact, I explicitly said "long exchanges" in some of my questions. There is nothing controversial or ambiguous about that.

1. Why then did you allude to it three times?

Because I was asking questions about the long exchange you guys just had, and about your thoughts on long exchanges in general. That's the topic I was interested in.

2. Why did you just HAPPEN to raise these questions after a long exchange between me and Guojing?

As I explained earlier, out of curiosity about your fresh experience with a very recent long exchange that had just finished, which are rare to find.

3. Why is it that, in point of fact, you do NOT raise the same questions on short exchanges?

Because I haven't felt curious about short exchanges. But perhaps in the future I will, who knows. But it doesn't follow from that that I have prejudices against short exchanges. In fact, this is the first time I ask questions about long exchanges in my life. There are probably other interesting rare long exchanges out there in which I haven't chimed in by asking the debaters about their thoughts and experience. Does that mean I have a prejudice against those long exchanges? Similarly, I have never asked questions about long exchanges in other languages (Italian, French, Chinese, Spanish, Hebrew, etc.). Does that mean I have a prejudice against other languages? Similarly, I have never asked questions about long exchanges on non-theological issues, such as Physics, Engineering, Computer Science, Veganism, Homeschooling, etc. Does that mean I have prejudices against Physics, Engineering, Computer Science, Veganism, Homeschooling, etc.?

See? You can speculate about a gazillion possible "prejudices" I might have based on the little data you have about myself. Again, if you don't believe me when I tell you I don't have prejudices against long exchanges, feel free to ask God to give you a supernatural word of knowledge about the contents of my subconscious mind.

Oh that's right. All of this is just my imagination. I'm only seeing invisible dragons, and haven't actually touched on any possible realities here. Gotcha.

Yes, you pretty much are doing so. You are fallaciously fitting a speculative model into very little data. The prejudices you accuse me of are nowhere to be found in the questions I asked nor in my conscious mind. So you are definitely seeing things which are not real. That's the definition of imagination.

I regularly use the word "seems" because we are fallible in all things. Again, however, if a friend or relative said that my words SEEMED inappropriate or offensive them, it "seems" to me that the best rectification would be to rephrase the statement, not fight with them for a week or accuse them of seeing invisible dragons.

Again, sorry about the dragon analogy if feelings were hurt because of it.

 

[topher694]

Why are you singling me out as the one who is doing the pestering? It generally takes two to tango.

Are you for real right now? You are the one continually ignoring Truthseek3r straight forward statements that he did not mean what you claim he meant. In the beginning that's a misunderstanding, now that its been clarified, and you still insist on your claim, it's a false accusation. Only one party is doing this, you.

 

[JAL]

Because that's irrelevant. It's like saying that a Paleontologist, who has a deep preference to study the fossils of dinosaurs, to which he devotes about 98% of his working time, has a prejudice against mammals or birds or bacteria or anything that is not a dinosaur. You are forgetting that, perhaps, he is currently very curious about dinosaurs and wants to learn more about them at this time, but perhaps, in the future, he might change his focus to fossils from other species, or even study a different career that focuses on studying living species.

Suppose that Paleontologist asked this question to a fellow Paleontologist:

"I study dinosaurs. I see you spend all your time studying other species. Is all that effort really worth it? After all, how much has your study managed to lower the price of tomatoes and gasoline in the nation of China?"

This question SEEMS to have an UNSTATED presupposition, and it's difficult to answer the somewhat rhetorical question without inadvertently buttressing that presupposition, namely:

"The study of dinosaurs has a more positive net effect on the economy than the study of other species."

Much of your post goes on to ask me to prove what you did or did not STATE, even though I've been pointing out (from round one) that the UNSTATED aspersions are the real concern.

 

[JAL]

@TruthSeek3r

Also much of your post implies that I need to be able to 100% prove my concerns to merit voicing them. You said, for example, that I'm operating on "very little data". And yet, typically a loaded or complex question is the only data needed to become justifiably suspicious about unstated presuppositions.

I think people have a right to prefer and request a re-phrasing of a question if it seems prejudicial to them (even if the inquirer disagrees about the prejudice). I don't think that's being unreasonable or expecting too much. You keep insinuating that I'm taking the matter too seriously. Are you open to the possibility that you are doing the same?

 

[TruthSeek3r]

Suppose that Paleontologist asked this question to a fellow Paleontologist:

"I study dinosaurs. I see you spend all your time studying other species. Is all that effort really worth it? After all, how much has your study managed to lower the price of tomatoes and gasoline in the nation of China?"

Back to making flawed analogies. The complex question of your analogy is suggesting the lowering of the price of tomatoes and gasoline in the nation of China as a metric to measure the worthiness of studying other species. That's obviously an unreasonable metric.

Can you quote one of my alleged "complex questions" and indicate what unreasonable metric I am proposing? Where in the question is the unreasonable metric stated?

Much of your post goes on to ask me to prove what you did or did not STATE, even though I've been pointing out (from round one) that the UNSTATED aspersions are the real concern.

And I'm saying that the UNSTATED aspersions are only to be found in your imagination, because they are not STATED in the questions themselves, and they are not found in my mind either. So they can only be an emergence of the biases of your brain while processing the questions (i.e., your imagination).

 

[TruthSeek3r]

@TruthSeek3r

Also much of your post implies that I need to be able to 100% prove my concerns to merit voicing them. You said, for example, that I'm operating on "very little data". And yet, typically a loaded or complex question is the only data needed to become justifiably suspicious about unstated presuppositions.

I don't know what definition of complex question you are reading. The word "unstated" does not appear even once in the whole Wikipedia article on complex questions (Complex question - Wikipedia). Complex questions are so because of the things they STATE in the complex structure of their sentences. Everything else is the context in which the statements made in the question can be either true or false.

I think people have a right to prefer and request a re-phrasing of a question if it seems prejudicial to them (even if the inquirer disagrees about the prejudice). I don't think that's being unreasonable or expecting too much. You keep insinuating that I'm taking the matter too seriously. Are you open to the possibility that you are doing the same?

Sure. I'm just making a big deal of this in response to your making a big deal of this in the first place. But I'm happy to leave this at the rephrased questions I already asked at post #467 and your answers at the end of post #469.

 

[JAL]

Back to making flawed analogies. The complex question of your analogy is suggesting the lowering of the price of tomatoes and gasoline in the nation of China as a metric to measure the worthiness of studying other species. That's obviously an unreasonable metric.

Again, that's the whole point - an unreasonable metric. It's unreasonable because NO CORRELATION plausibly exists between the Chinese economy and ANY fossil studies. Yet answering the rhetorical question could LOOK like an implicit acknowledgement that other-species study fails in that regard!

Similarly, you asked, if long exchanges "are really worth it", because, after all, "Did anyone change their position?" Again, an unreasonable metric because there is NO CORRELATION since short exchanges suffer the same problem.

If I as the respondent reply, "No one changed their position", I'm lending support to the notion that "long exchanges are not really worth it", thereby casting undue aspersions (which I do not want to cast because short exchanges have the same problem). Thus the rhetorical nature of the question puts me in a bad position, better to not answer it.

Can you quote one of my alleged "complex questions" and indicate what unreasonable metric I am proposing? Where in the question is the unreasonable metric stated?

See above.

 

[JAL]

@TruthSeek3r,

Context is everything. Guojing and I had just engaged in a long exchange. Forthwith, you asked questions worded in a way that potentially casts aspersions on what we just did. But since those potential aspersions apply to EVERYONE and to ALL POSTS, I preferred that you word your questions in a way that doesn't seem to gratuitously single us out or disparage what we did relative to what everyone else does. That's a fair and reasonable request.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

Again, that's the whole point - an unreasonable metric. It's unreasonable because NO CORRELATION plausibly exists between the Chinese economy and ANY fossil studies. Yet answering the rhetorical question could LOOK like an implicit acknowledgement that other-species study fails in that regard!

Similarly, you asked, if long exchanges "are really worth it", because, after all, "Did anyone change their position?" Again, an unreasonable metric because there is NO CORRELATION since short exchanges suffer the same problem.

If I as the respondent reply, "No one changed their position", I'm lending support to the notion that "long exchanges are not really worth it", thereby casting undue aspersions (which I do not want to cast because short exchanges have the same problem). Thus the rhetorical nature of the question puts me in a bad position, better to not answer it.

Then you need to quote my whole set of questions from post #434:

• After about 20 pages of discussion with @JAL, what would you say are the main insights you've learnt?
• What are the main conclusions?
• Also, has your position changed in the slightest after all the time and effort spent in this back-and-forth exchange?
• Do you think @JAL's position has changed in the slightest?
• Did anyone's position change in the slightest?
• Did anyone learn anything new?
• Did anyone get closer to the truth?
• Ultimately, do you think long back-and-forth exchanges are worth it?

Those are 8 questions. If I rephrase my set of 8 questions through the lens of "metrics to measure worthiness of long exchanges", then you would have to think I presuppose long exchanges are worth it if:

1. They help you gain new insights.
2. They help you arrive at new conclusions.
3. They contribute to change your position.
4. They contribute to change someone else's position.
5. They help you learn new things.
6. They help you get closer to the truth.

Of course, these are different metrics, and they don't need to be ALL fulfilled at the same time. Maybe your position didn't change (metric 3) but someone else's position did (metric 4), or you learnt something new (metrics 1, 2 and 5), or you feel that the long discussion has helped you get closer to the truth in some way (metric 6).

All your complaints thus far have been about the limitations of metrics 3 and 4 (someone's position changing), when in fact they are only two of six metrics I stated.

Firstly, do you seriously think that this set of 6 alternative metrics is "unreasonable"? What is unreasonable about learning something new, gaining new insights, arriving at new conclusions and getting closer to the truth?

Secondly, I never claimed that these 6 metrics are exhaustive. If you feel like other metrics are missing, you are free to mention them when explaining how this long exchange has been so rewarding and worth it for you personally. I NEVER said that you have to limit yourself to those 6 metrics. Feel free to add more.

So, in conclusion, even if I grant you seeing my questions through the lens of "a complex set of questions that presupposes metrics", I still don't see what is unreasonable about them.

 

[JAL]

Then you need to quote my whole set of questions from post #434:

• After about 20 pages of discussion with @JAL, what would you say are the main insights you've learnt?
• What are the main conclusions?
• Also, has your position changed in the slightest after all the time and effort spent in this back-and-forth exchange?
• Do you think @JAL's position has changed in the slightest?
• Did anyone's position change in the slightest?
• Did anyone learn anything new?
• Did anyone get closer to the truth?
• Ultimately, do you think long back-and-forth exchanges are worth it?

Those are 8 questions. If I rephrase my set of 8 questions through of lens of "metrics to measure worthiness of long exchanges", then you would have to think I presuppose long exchanges are worth it if:

1. They can help you gain new insights.
2. They can help you arrive at new conclusions.
3. They can contribute to change your position.
4. They can contribute to change someone else's position.
5. They can allow you to learn new things.
6. They can help you get closer to the truth.

Of course, these are different metrics, and they don't need to be ALL fulfilled at the same time. Maybe your position didn't change (metric 3) but someone else's position did (metric 4), or you learnt something new (metrics 1, 2 and 5), or you feel that the long discussion has helped you get closer to the truth in some way (metric 6).

All your complaints thus far have been about the limitations of metrics 3 and 4 (someone's position changing), when in fact they are only two of six metrics I stated.

Firstly, do you seriously think that this set of 6 alternative metrics is "unreasonable"? What is unreasonable about learning something new, gaining new insights, arriving at new conclusions and getting closer the truth?

Secondly, I never claimed that these 6 metrics are exhaustive. If you feel like other metrics are missing, you are free to mention them when explaining how this long exchange has been so rewarding and worth it for you personally. I NEVER said that you have to limit yourself to those 6 metrics. Feel free to add more.

So, in conclusion, even if I grant you seeing my questions through the lens of "a complex set of questions that presupposes metrics", I still don't see what is unreasonable about them.

From what I see, the majority of people, including myself, tend to feel mostly unenlightened after forum exchanges whether short or long. We usually feel that we didn't learn MUCH and thus we FEEL that we cannot offer anything much in the way of a positive reply to ANY of your questions. Which means that, to a large extent, all the questions are on the same level (they rhetorically gravitate to negative answers for the most part), at least from the perspective of how we FEEL. Hence my objection stands.

Maybe we should stop here? Because here's the reality of the situation. Here's what's not going to change, neither now nor in the foreseeable future. If you (or anyone else) once again asks me a question that seems rhetorically prejudicial to conclusions dissented by me, I'm going to call it out, because I simply don't see any point in taking the risk of needlessly impugning my own beliefs.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

From what I see, the majority of people, including myself, tend to feel mostly unenlightened after forum exchanges whether short or long. We usually feel that we didn't learn MUCH and thus we FEEL that we cannot offer anything much in the way of a positive reply to ANY of your questions. Which means that, to a large extent, all the questions are on the same level (they rhetorically gravitate to negative answers for the most part), at least from the perspective of how we FEEL. Hence my objection stands.

Fair enough, although I'm still curious: are there any other metrics, not included in those six, in which you feel your exchange with Guojing did score very high, which is the reason why you kept on debating him for so long?

Maybe we should stop here? Because here's the reality of the situation. Here's what's not going to change, neither now nor in the foreseeable future. If you (or anyone else) once again asks me a question that seems rhetorically prejudicial to conclusions dissented by me, I'm going to call it out, because I simply don't see any point in taking the risk of needlessly impugning my own beliefs.

Sounds like a good idea. I hope you may engage in many more long, fruitful and rewarding exchanges in the future.

 

[JAL]

Fair enough, although I'm still curious: are there any other metrics, not included in those six, in which you feel your exchange with Guojing did score very high, which is the reason why you kept on debating him for so long?

I debate because I feel that all of us, including myself, have been influenced by indoctrination and therefore need to hear an opposing side to increase our chances of objectivity. Why should I have confidence in my own views, if I haven't seen how well they stand up against counter-arguments?

Also I sometimes offer a unique perspective born from rigid application of things like Occam's Razor, the Law of Non-Contradiction, and intolerance for humanly incomprehensible doctrines. Thus when someone claims to have a million verses to support his position, I ask him to first show me how it passes those three criteria. In turn, I try to show him how my current set of beliefs DO seem to pass those three tests with flying colors. Meanwhile I also try to use Scripture to further corroborate my beliefs.

Like most people on this forum, then, I debate because I feel like I have something to offer and because I want to feel SURE that my position withstands objections.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

I debate because I feel that all of us, including myself, have been influenced by indoctrination and therefore need to hear an opposing side to increase our chances of objectivity. Why should I have confidence in my own views, if I haven't seen how well they stand up against counter-arguments?

Also I sometimes offer a unique perspective born from rigid application of things like Occam's Razor, the Law of Non-Contradiction, and intolerance for humanly incomprehensible doctrines. Thus when someone claims to have a million verses to support his position, I ask him to first show me how it passes those three criteria. In turn, I try to show him how my current set of beliefs DO seem to pass those three tests with flying colors. Meanwhile I also try to use Scripture to further corroborate my beliefs.

Like most people on this forum, then, I debate because I feel like I have something to offer and because I want to feel SURE that my position withstands objections.

Sounds like very good reasons to engage in long debates with the right kind of opposing side. Reasons with which I can sympathize. This reminds me of my fairly long exchange with swordsman1 on cessationism vs. continuationism: Of the following spiritual gifts, which ones are still available and which ones have ceased?

As main takeways from that exchange, I learned a lot about the cessationist epistemology regarding testimonial evidence for modern miracles, confirmed some hypotheses I already had in mind about cessationists, and learned a fair bit about common cessationist arguments.

 

[topher694]

Well, would you look at this. Looks like this thread is dead, just as I predicted. How sad.

 

[JAL]

Drawing conclusions on circumstantial evidence. Lots of threads have ended sooner than this one.

 

[topher694]

mmmmmm, hmmmmm... sure