In a debate, is it enough to simply provide empirical evidence to support your argument?

[Littlefingers In The Air]

You're discussing an important subject on a platform like Facebook and you make a claim, and provide empirical evidence for that claim. Have you done enough? Does a good argument mix the empirical with the anecdotal?

[OldGimletEye]

I don't think so, at least in many cases. Certainly, I'm a great believer in empirical evidence. And it is certainly helpful in rebutting a priori reasoning. But data can often be messy, subject to differing interpretations at times, and is often random. Also, if you are using a statistical model to make an empirical case, there is always the chance the stats model is misspecified, so you need to give justification why the stats model is appropriate.

In short:

solid theoretical argument + solid empirical verification = best kind of argument.

[sologdin]

evidence of whatever type (direct v. circumstantial, anecdotal v. statistical, empirical v. revelatory [!]) will satisfy the demands of the aristotelian logos, but that in itself is typically not sufficient to prevail when one's interlocutor (or audience) is irrational.  i've been posting here as a marxist for twelve years, for instance, and logos be damned, but all'y'all numbnuts are still under the sway to the comical pathos and accumulated ethos of bourgeois ideology. 

[DanteGabriel]

It doesn't matter, because you're not going to change anyone's mind in a Facebook argument anyway. It's just signaling to one's own cultural tribe.

[Malik Ambar]

See this is correct

 

I don't think so, at least in many cases. Certainly, I'm a great believer in empirical evidence. And it is certainly helpful in rebutting a priori reasoning. But data can often be messy, subject to differing interpretations at times, and is often random. Also, if you are using a statistical model to make an empirical case, there is always the chance the stats model is misspecified, so you need to give justification why the stats model is appropriate.

In short:

solid theoretical argument + solid empirical verification = best kind of argument.

 

But this is more correct

 

It doesn't matter, because you're not going to change anyone's mind in a Facebook argument anyway. It's just signaling to one's own cultural tribe.

[Altherion]

What do you mean by "empirical evidence"? A lot of times people provide a link to some study and assume that the argument is finished, but you have to be really, really sure that the study is correct. Keep in mind that even studies on a neutral topic can be wrong -- drawing empirical conclusions generally requires math and math is [i]hard[/i]. For example, the Center for Open Science has been trying to replicate experiments published in scientific journals and so far they've only managed to reproduce less than half of the 100 results (the field is psychology). This would be bad enough, but if you are discussing a contentious issue backed by moneyed interests, it is quite likely that the study is quietly backed by somebody prejudiced towards a certain conclusion and the results fortuitously happen to justify that prejudice.

 

Don't get me wrong, there is good science being done as well and engineering provides solid empirical evidence by virtue of the fact that whatever it is engineers build has to work. However, I rather doubt that the kind of empirical evidence one can be relatively confident in is something that would be helpful in most Facebook arguments.

[maarsen]

Uless you have the math to back up your hypothesis, empirical evidence is just  a record of what happened in the past and no guarantee of what the future may hold. In other words, your mileage may vary.

[Civility Reigns]

You have to insult the person while you're at it.

[OldGimletEye]

You have to insult the person while you're at it.

Yes, this is definitely the most important part of any argument.

[IamMe90]

Yes, this is definitely the most important part of any [b]facebook[/b] argument.

 

FTFY

[The King in Black]

 

FTFY

 

Idk man, our dear board is also catching up pretty fast I would say.

[OldGimletEye]

FTFY

Why thank you. That's what I meant. It's definitely important to show all your Facebook friends how rude, obnoxious, and condescending you can be.

Also, never actually try to rebut your opponent's arguments in good faith. Create strawmen and point out all their grammar and spelling mistakes.

[The King in Black]

Why thank you. That's what I meant. It's definitely important to show all your Facebook friends how rude, obnoxious, and condescending you can be.

Also, never actually try to rebut your opponent's arguments in good faith. Create strawmen and point out all their grammar and spelling mistakes.

While making a boatload of your own. Not a buttload,  a boatload.

[OldGimletEye]

While making a boatload of your own. Not a buttload,  a boatload.

When arguing on FB, blatant hypocrisy is okay.

[SeanF]

Why thank you. That's what I meant. It's definitely important to show all your Facebook friends how rude, obnoxious, and condescending you can be.Also, never actually try to rebut your opponent's arguments in good faith. Create strawmen and point out all their grammar and spelling mistakes.

Bonus points if you accuse your opponent of being a Nazi, Communist, pedophile, advocate of slavery etc.

Actually, Facebook and twitter are appalling media for making arguments.

[Bonesy]

The cynicism in this thread is warranted. But to answer your question as best I can:

Empirical evidence should always be the basis of your argument when it exists. Anecdotal evidence is important too. It let's the more critical thinkers in the conversation know something about where you're coming from and they can tailor their thoughts accordingly. That said anecdotal evidence cannot convincingly be the basis of your argument. Also, try to learn what the likely counter-arguments will be. You'll be better prepared to defend your position and on occasion, to rethink it yourself. And as always, know your audience. Don't break your skull on a brick wall.

[Gneisenau]

If you aim to persuade, then name calling shaming, sock puppets (for online) are good tools

[Bonesy]

Also, The Black King, a buttload is as large as a boatload depending on the boat. Look it up.

[The King in Black]

See i read this as

 

Also, The Black King, a buttload is as large as a boatload depending on the butt. Look it up.

 

:lmao:

 

Also, its King in Black. Black King is the dude who posts threads in GenAsoiaf wondering where the Female Others are

[Bonesy]

My bad. Tapatalk still sucks. Look it up though.