I plead to the members of <> to allow reasoned thought to reign here.

I see so m uch emotionally based debate and irrationality, that it's saddening how we often forget how to use facts, knowledge and most importantly, skepticism, to formula te our viewpoints. Step back from your political convictions, and step away from your emotion for just a second. Allow for one moment that maybe, just maybe, th e leaders of your political party are fallible. Release the partisan beliefs you hold, and your conceived notions about persons, and weigh each man's words equa lly. Weigh them as if you do not know his beliefs. Let his words speak, rather t han let your thoughts about his character obscure his word's meaning. I find tha t all too often, before someone has spoken, he has already been labeled as eithe r "enemy or friend", and is summarily treated as so. These are some basic rules for reasoned, educated and objective debate. This lis t is compiled from many different sources, but it's creation is inspired by Carl Sagan's own plea for reasoned thought: "Science as A Candle in the Dark", also called "A Demon Haunted World". A book I think everyone here should read. List of Improper Debating Tactics, AVOID THESE. - Ad hominem. Latin for "at the man". This is a debating tactic that attacks the arguer and not the argument. PLEASE, debate the words that people post, not you r idea ABOUT the person that posts. e.g., "member x is a liberal so his objectio ns to the Iraqi war will obviously be unfounded," or ,"member x is a conservativ e, so he is obviously a warmonger". More directly, "Mr. Smith is an imbecile, th erefore all of his arguments are false." - Argument from Authority. This is the fallacy that states: If an authority says something, it is obviously true, and it does not need to be evaluated on it's m erits. e.g. (Re-elect nixon because he has a secret plan to end the war in SE As ia.) Since there is no way to evaluate this plan, there is no way to debate this . Additionally, "because Einstein said it, and he's an expert, it must be true." - Argument from adverse consequences. "X must exist, because if it didn't then h ow could Y be possible!". Even though there is no hard evidence, a certain concl usion is thought to be true because the alternative seems unlikely. e.g. (God mu st exist, because the very fact that the world is here, means that someone must have created it). In this argument, there is no DRIECT evidence, so it is not pr ovable, or debatable. The converse also falls under this fallacy, "God must not exist, because we've never seen evidence for him!" - Appeal to ignorance. The claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa. "There is no evidence against the existance of UFOs, so t hey probably exist." - Special pleading. Often rescues a proposition in rhetorical or circumstantial trouble. In other words, stating a fact is true, because no one understands exac tly what is going on. - Begging the question. "We must institute the death penalty to lower the rate o f violent crime!" But is there any evidence that instigating the death penalty w ill lower violent crime? Or, "The stock market fell yesterday because of a techn ical adjustment and profit-taking by investors", but is there is any independent evidence to support such a claim? - Observational selection. Ignoring the bad in a situation, and only focusing on the good. This happens all to often here, with the conservatives backing the "i nfallible Bush", and the liberals fighting against the "totally failed Bush". Ob

jectivism... - Misunderstanding statistics, and "small statistics". Really try and see how po lls and statistics can be skewed. Have they listed the population the statistics have come from? How were the statistics calculated. Are they meaningful based o n the criteria used? Have they been bent in any way? - Inconsistency. When one viewpoint is accepted, but another viewpoint is dismis sed simply because it counteracts the speaker's central perspective: Believing t hat the failing life expectancy of Russia is because of the failures of communis m, but NOT believing that the increased infant mortality rate could be because o f the failures of capitalism. - Non sequitur. Latin for "It doesn't follow". This happens when people have sim ply ignored alternative possibilities. Or, they have attributed something to an unconfirmed cause. Most commonly, a conclusion is stated that does not follow fr om the argument given to support it. "Because pollution is becoming more of a pr oblem in cities, and the air quality is decreasing, people are becoming poorer." - Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Latin for, "It happened after, so it was caused by ". This fallacy assumes that because something occured at the same time, or befo re, it was the cause of. e.g. "because she took contraceptive pills a few years ago, she now looks like she is 20 years older than her age. There is no proof of that, or even data to support the claim. Or, "before women could vote, there we re no nuclear weapons." This second example, is also an example of a "non-sequit ur". - Excluded middle, or false dichotomy. considering only the extremes of a situat ion, "Since you don't support the war on Iraq, you obviously hate America" or "S ince you support the war on Iraq, you're obviously a racist." - Slippery slope. The idea that one action will lead to a secondary effect that is not a direct cause of the original action. "If we allow abortion in the first weeks of pregnancy, it will be impossible to stop abortions of full-term infant s", or, "The state should allow abortion in even the ninth month because otherwi se, they will be telling us what we can't do around the time of conception." Bot h suggested changes are effects of an effect. There is no reason to believe eith er conclusion. - Confusing correlation and casusation. The assumption that because variable A i s present in the same situation as variable B, A MUST be the cause of A. Really, there is no mechanism for how A causes B, so it's not causative. "A survey show s that more college graduates are homosexual than those that do not have degrees , therefore education makes you homosexual." - Straw man tactics. Making a caricature out of a position in order to make it e asier to attack. This is when people Assume they know someone's point of view, a nd begin arguing a made-up construction about their opponent, rather than just d ebate the words of their opponent. In short, you assume that your opponent belie ves something that he or she did not explicitly state. - Suppressed evidence, and half-truths. This is pretty self-explanatory. Don't p ost half-truths and propaganda and expect us to believe them. - Weasal words. The re-labeling of a certain tactic or fact, in order to make it seem tacit, or uninteresting. "The president may not declare war without the co nsent of congress, but as long as it's called a "police action" and not a war th en it's fine." I hope that people will use this list when they debate here. Let's try and actua

lly learn something through discussion rather than just arguing pointlessly. Hop efully these tools will help us to cut through the garbage. A Recipe For Reasoned Thought. DO THIS! - Wherever possible, there should be independent confirmation of "Facts". Look f or conflicting data, and accept such data at face value. All the data should be used to formulate your viewpoint, not just the data that suits your viewpoint. - Encourage debate on the information from all points of view, neither pre-judgi ng, or belittling any view you don't agree with. - Arguments from "Authorities" carry little weight. Listen to only the facts pre sented by them and evaluate their logic yourself. Authorities are useful, though , as a starting point to begin to explore a certain field of study. - Always think of ve those othesis, forge more than one hypothesis. If there is something to be explained, all the different ways it could be explained. Then, find ways to dispro hypotheses. Generally, you will always end up with multiple working hyp even if you don't agree with all of them.

- Try not to get attached to a hypothesis because it's yours, or because you fee l strongly about it. Compare it fairly, and objectively with the alternative hyp otheses. Always try and finds reasons why your hypothesis could be wrong. Build as much evidence against it before you trust it. - Quantify. If you can find quantitative measurements for what you are trying to prove, then use that information to weigh competing points of view and to suppo rt/modify your own viewpoint. Qualitative data is up for interpretation, but be steadfast and weigh each interpretation carefully. - If there is a chain of logic that forms an argument, every chain in the argume nt must be rigorous, with no weak links. - See if your hypothesis can be falsified. Viewpoints which are unverifiable are less meaningful than those that are. If your hypothesis can be falsified, grant that it may not be true pending more information.