Sorry to beat a dead horse (well, actually, I’m NOT sorry - it’s my blog and I’ll do what I want:-) but I think you made my point anyway, several times over.

You’re right (eek! looks like that dreaded middle ground again!) in your example above that debate didn’t WIN the argument, but you have to admit, side B would never have had a chance unless the debate happened.

It’s been fun, but I don’t think I’ll ever make a lawyer.

It’s not simply that I don’t think the “true believers” will be swayed, it’s more that I don’t believe that anyone who weighs in on the debate will be swayed (I don’t think I have been, and I didn’t really have an opinion until I started arguing.)

To clear something up on the argument about scientific theories first I’d like to point you at the marvellous book “What is this thing called science?” Which shows far more clearly than I could how a new theory comes about. However the process is roughly along the lines of:

Theory A isn’t perfect
Scientists who like theory A (I’ll call them side A) make up some really dodgy rules to account for the imperfection. The mini-cycles inserted into the circular orbits of planets to account for their behaviour is a good example.
More observations are made
More problems are shown in theory A
Side A papers the cracks more.
Eventually Side B proposes a new theory (which solves all the problems for which the dodgy rules have been introduced)
Sides A and B argue (and research)
Eventually Side A will have so much evidence against them they’ll collapse (or they’ll all die of old age.)

It’s not really the debate which wins Side A over - either Side A realise that there’s a whole stack of evidence opposing them (not clever arguments) or everyone else realises Side A are wrong, and they all stop listening to Side A.

I still maintain the debating process doesn’t help there.

I can see we’re coming dangerously into a middle ground - which would actually mean I’ve lost the debate (damn!) In which we agree (to a varying extent) that the arguers won’t be disuaded, but the argument will inform the public. I can agree that if the public are intelligent enough, and the arguments are rational enough then this will happen (which really means I’ve lost the debate - darn.) but I will only agree that with the proviso that if - as often happens - the argument is made in emotive terms, and the public aren’t educated about the arguments, then you’ll more likely get more extreme opinions forming from the previously dis-interested crowd.

Think about rational politicians making arguments against racial groups, based on their own reasons - but using arguments like “they’re stealing all our jobs!”, or “they’re a bunch of criminal gypsies.” the end result is a public where some people believe those statements (which are most likely lies) and you’ve served to create tensions where tensions didn’t exist.

But I digress, that’s not what we’re talking about. I will have to concede - that intelligent debate often does lead to a better informed public and more rounded debaters. But only when the arguments are made based on reasoning - and not emotion.

Although you could argue that the opinions never really changed, but that the debate simply highlights that two opinions which sounded different were actually quite similar. But that’s a debate for another day - with that I shall bow out, and stick to putting silly links on my blog.

OK, gloves back on…

It’s obvious we have somewhat different world-views here. What I hear you saying is that debate between two opposing views is pointless because neither is likely to change their mind. Point taken. That’s probably true, IF each side clings to their beliefs with a religious fervor. For instance, how many “true believer” Republicans or Democrats are actually swayed by Presidential debates, anyway? Probably none.

Having said that, however, does not preclude the value of the debate because it’s the opportunity for someone from each side, who believes passionately in what he or she says, to present as much information as possible - to expose the issues, if you will. The value is that those of us “out here” can learn something from each side so we can (if necessary) make our own minds up.

Although neither side’s “true believers” will likely be converted to the others’ - I say, “So what?” I still believe value has been created by the exchange of ideas, and as a side benefit, it’s possible “more people now know more stuff”.

I also agree that many issues will end up in the “it depends” category. And it’s not likely that a good debate can actually be “won” in the sense that a mathematical proof can prove a theorem. But that doesn’t invalidate the worth of a good debate to air the issues so more people can gain information from it. At least, not to me.

Let’s see, what else?

“any side you care to propose will have weaknesses.” True, but what are they? How do you find out? Research, experiment, discuss, debate!

I’ll also agree with you: I bet the introduction of those new scientific theories sparked genuine dogfights! But I think your argument is a bit circular. How could they have been won by crushing evidence if people hold on to their beliefs even after being proved wrong? The fact is, intelligent debate probably contributed greatly to eventual acceptance.

Tom, don’t get me wrong here. I happen to agree with most of your points. Human beings ARE the most fascinating creations! But it’s your conclusion I don’t agree with. If debates (and debaters) were entirely objective I suspect we’d all die of boredom listening. I WANT passion in debate! That’s what makes it interesting.

This very string is a good example of what I am saying. Neither one of us is likely to come out of this convinced the other person has “won”. There’s no win or lose here. That’s not even the point. The point is that others who read it will have the chance to see BOTH sides and hopefully gain a bit from the exchange.

But if you think people are able to intelligently debate anything - especially in public - then you’re at least partially deluding yourself. Once people have expressed an opinion they have an emotional attachment to that opinion, and a vested interest in not being proven wrong.

Ok, so the programming language question isn’t a valid one - but the there’s a plethora of issues which fall into the “it depends” category. There are other more scientific results which have raged for years “Nature vs. Nuture” in phsycology (spelling?) is a good example - it seems to be settling down to “it depends, but it’s a bit of both”. I wouldn’t be surprised if the majority of such debates result in “it depends”.

My problem stems from something you’ve expressed quite well. “I for one would truly enjoy hearing all sides of a debate, if it’s a subject I care about.” once you start caring about a subject you lose a lot of your objectivity, and as I said before, any debate worth having will have good reasons on both sides. Furthermore any side you care to propose will have weaknesses. Newton’s theory of gravity had been disproven in Newton’s lifetime (or around that time, check out the Perihelion of Mercury). Debate didn’t win the day for Newton, nor Max Planck nor any scientific discovery - sheer crushing weight of evidence did.

Even in science - where you can apply evidence to proving and disproving theories debate still takes an incredible amount of time, and controvesial new theories will either be adopted as “cool” immediately or won’t be adopted until the weigth of evidence is utterly irrefutable. People are emotional beings, and if you’re disagreeing with someone’s idea they’ll fight you to the bitter last, often after they’ve realised they’re wrong. They’ve invested a certain amount in their ideas and they’ll take criticism personally.

But in the real world - in political, philosophical, religious or any other kind of debate, evidence isn’t nearly so clear-cut and you end up with extremely long standing debates which never reach a conclusion. Both sides can make intelligent well reasoned points, but as they weigh the values of those points against their beliefs and emotions neither side will concede the other side has won. (Think of the debates concerning punishment vs. rehabilitation, have the two sides moved together over the years? In some places they have, but in some places they are even more polarised than they were before.)

In short I believe that in order for intelligent debate to work, it would have to be entirely objective - and given that we’re all human, that ain’t happening any time soon.

Your example of programming languages is not valid in this case. The question of “which programming language is best?” is highly dependent on what you want to accomplish. However, there are plenty of debates that may turn out to actually HAVE a resolution that can be resolved (to most people’s satisfaction) by debate.

Oh, I know there are always holdouts, no matter what the facts (Elvis is REALLY dead, folks!), but that’s not intelligent debate, which is what I’m proposing.

I for one would truly enjoy hearing all sides of a debate, if it’s a subject I care about.

p.s. Great quote from Max Planck, by the way. But… surely you recognize the sarcasm inherent in the statement? He successfuly debated, and won over, the scientific establishment of his day (which took quite some time though, which may account for the tone of his quote), but eventually was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1918.

“A new scientific idea does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” -Max Planck

For witness I’d call on the fact that the “which programming language is best” debate - although pointless (discuss) - has raged ever since there was more than one language, and will continue to do so.

I can’t remember the exact quote, or even who said it - but I believe it was summed up quite well by someone when talking about debate in scientific circles. “You don’t win an argument, old opponents just die.” In many fields of science, and you’d have thought scientists would be swayed by rational argument, the “old school” never give up on their opinion, they simply fail to persuade newcomers that they’re right - causing their argument to eventually (literally) die.

I’m afraid I’ll have to disagree on this point altogether - sorry.

Technorati is said to index 50 million blogs and, after a little under two weeks of passionate blogging on my new domain, I’m under 400,000! Makes me wonder what the hell everyone else is doing.

As for this blogging group, I believe it’s called a network and I’m all for starting one