Practical debate vs. Rhetorical debate

[Swami]

In my experience, debate boils down to two types: rhetorical and practical.

Rhetorical debate is the most common. It involves the use of speaking or writing to persuade. Of course, this involves articulating your point with logic and evidence.

Practical debate is more of a spin off of the concept of 'practical knowledge'. Rather than trying to persuade with words alone, you also persuade by getting others to experience your views. In this way, the evidence offered is not only explained but can also be put into practice to be experienced.

So the only difference between rhetoric and practical debate is the latter integrates a practical approach to persuasion. They are both similar in that they both deal with the essence of debating which is to get an opposing side to see the truth, if possible.

More Definitions
Practical knowledge is knowledge that is acquired by day-to-day hands-on experiences. In other words, practical knowledge is gained through doing things; it is very much based on real-life endeavors and tasks. On the other hand, theoretical knowledge teaches the reasoning, techniques and theory of knowledge. While practical knowledge is gained by doing things, theoretical knowledge is gained, for example, by reading a manual.


The benefits and necessity of my approach
- The opponent doesn't simply have to rely on my word or the word of a scientist, but rather they can verify it for themselves.
- Some topics can only be understood if or when someone experiences it. I don't expect to convince someone that disbelieves in the thrill of driving fast that they are wrong because of my experience or the experience of others. Any debate based solely on words or texts would have to end here. The best way to settle this debate is to employ a style that not only uses rhetoric but also offering evidence that the disbeliever can experience for himself. The same goes for a lot of the topics I deal with in regards to consciousness and experience.
- My view takes full advantage of the Eastern approach where religious experiences are largely "voluntary" instead of just hoping or waiting for some spirit contacts you.


For Skeptics
Despite what many like zzyzx has said, my style is not a matter of laziness or some cover up for an inability to prove my point. In fact, to the contrary, it is a way to expose those who are not really seeking truth. If there's a way for you to experience these things for yourself, why wouldn't you do it? Why wouldn't you do it especially when you know that it has the power of convincing you based on all of the evidence of atheists who have converted due to religious experience?

If my style is the problem, can you tell me another way I can use my experiential model in a debate? Perhaps, some would prefer that I don't use it at all, but then I would question if such a person is open to changing their beliefs.

[Divine Insight]

In my experience, debate boils down to two types: rhetorical and practical.

I disagree with your simplistic dichotomy. I'm convinced that when debating a topic there is much value in many different areas from pure logic and reason, to the weight of producible evidence, as well as the practicality of obvious examples. So I would suggest that debate is far more diverse than your attempt to reduce it to some simple dichotomy.

So the only difference between rhetoric and practical debate is the latter integrates a practical approach to persuasion. They are both similar in that they both deal with the essence of debating which is to get an opposing side to see the truth, if possible.

So then you are arguing that practical debate contains rhetoric debate as a subset?

So practical debate must be more effective then.

More Definitions
Practical knowledge is knowledge that is acquired by day-to-day hands-on experiences. In other words, practical knowledge is gained through doing things; it is very much based on real-life endeavors and tasks. On the other hand, theoretical knowledge teaches the reasoning, techniques and theory of knowledge. While practical knowledge is gained by doing things, theoretical knowledge is gained, for example, by reading a manual.

Again I disagree with your perspective on this. I disagree that theoretical knowledge is gained by reading a manual. To the contrary I would say that theoretical knowledge is gain by understanding what you've read in a rational and logical way. If you just read a manual that you don't understand and accept the conclusions, then you haven't obtained an understanding of the theory.

So theoretical knowledge is not obtained by simply reading a manual. Although theoretical knowledge can be gained from reading a manual, but only if you are capable of understanding the concepts you have read.

The benefits and necessity of my approach
- The opponent doesn't simply have to rely on my word or the word of a scientist, but rather they can verify it for themselves.

To begin with why call this "your approach"?

Secondly anyone who wants to understand the knowledge discovered by science doesn't need to take the word of any scientist. To the contrary they can do the experiments themselves. At least for the vast majority of scientific understanding. When it comes to knowledge that has been gained by the use of extreme technologies it is true that we then need to depend on evidence provided by a means we cannot personally experience. None the less, we can learn about how those experiments were done and at least understand the theory (the knowledge) behind them.

- Some topics can only be understood if or when someone experiences it. I don't expect to convince someone that disbelieves in the thrill of driving fast that they are wrong because of my experience or the experience of others. Any debate based solely on words or texts would have to end here. The best way to settle this debate is to employ a style that not only uses rhetoric but also offering evidence that the disbeliever can experience for himself. The same goes for a lot of the topics I deal with in regards to consciousness and experience.

You've lost me here entirely. Who can say that driving fast is "wrong"? All we can do is speak to the dangers of driving fast, and then allow everyone to chose whether or not they are willing to take those risks. None the less a practical approach (or scientific approach) is the best way to make a case for the dangers of driving fast.

- My view takes full advantage of the Eastern approach where religious experiences are largely "voluntary" instead of just hoping or waiting for some spirit contacts you.

To the best of my knowledge no credible Eastern religion has ever made any claim that if you meditate you will be contacted by a spirit.

Moreover, if such a claim were true it could easily be proven. And at this point we have absolutely no proof that anyone who has meditated as ever been contacted by a spirit. We do have people who claim to have been contacted by spirits, but none of them have ever produced any compelling evidence to show that they had experienced anything more than personal imagination.

For Skeptics
Despite what many like zzyzx has said, my style is not a matter of laziness or some cover up for an inability to prove my point. In fact, to the contrary, it is a way to expose those who are not really seeking truth. If there's a way for you to experience these things for yourself, why wouldn't you do it? Why wouldn't you do it especially when you know that it has the power of convincing you based on all of the evidence of atheists who have converted due to religious experience?

I am not aware of any people who have meditated who were able to produce any compelling evidence that what they experienced during their meditation was ever anything more than a product of their own imagination.

In fact, if there was something supernatural going on with meditation that fact would be easily demonstrated by a growing consistency of meditative experiences that are not only extremely similar, but are also providing truths about reality that people who do not meditate are unaware of.

Thus far in the entire history of the human race this has never happened.

If my style is the problem, can you tell me another way I can use my experiential model in a debate? Perhaps, some would prefer that I don't use it at all, but then I would question if such a person is open to changing their beliefs.

Well, the first thing you would need to do to convince me is return from your meditative state with information that you could not have otherwise have obtained.

Until you can do that I see no reason to think that you have anything to offer of value.

In fact, if you are familiar with the Easter Religions you should know that they are as diverse and divisive as any other religious movement. If there was any truth to the idea that meditation produces a single truth, then why aren't all the Eastern religions in perfect harmony with their experiences and claims?

The truth is that there is no compelling evidence for any of these claims.

That's the truth. If you are interested in truth you need to just look at reality. All these claims of supernatural spirits simply don't pan out. There isn't even any consistency in them.

[Tcg]

If there's a way for you to experience these things for yourself, why wouldn't you do it?

This comment reveals the problem with your approach. You set yourself up as the ultimate authority as to which experiences are valid and which aren't. Your criteria of course is that if an experience doesn't cause one to reach the exact conclusions you reach, then you consider the experience invalid.


This reminds me of a discussion on the now defunct Amazon forums. One poster claimed that 100% of those who experience NDEs believe in a god of some sort as a result. Another poster shared the fact that they had experienced an NDE and yet lack belief in gods of any kind. In order to maintain their claim that 100% of those who experience NDEs believe in a god of some sort as a result, the poster making this claim denied that the poster who almost died had an NDE.


This is the same method you employ here. You deny the experiences of others if they don't lead to the same conclusions your experience leads you to make. If you truly believe that experience leads to truth, you'd have to treat all experiences equally. You don't.



Tcg

[Swami]

For Skeptics
Despite what many like zzyzx has said, my style is not a matter of laziness or some cover up for an inability to prove my point. In fact, to the contrary, it is a way to expose those who are not really seeking truth. If there's a way for you to experience these things for yourself, why wouldn't you do it? Why wouldn't you do it especially when you know that it has the power of convincing you based on all of the evidence of atheists who have converted due to religious experience?

I am not aware of any people who have meditated who were able to produce any compelling evidence that what they experienced during their meditation was ever anything more than a product of their own imagination.

Well, the first thing you would need to do to convince me is return from your meditative state with information that you could not have otherwise have obtained.

Well there may be some limitations on how much of the Eastern views that Western scientists can validate. The reason for this is that a lot of the Eastern views are based on first-person methods. They also involve perceiving reality through higher states of consciousness. Therefore, Western science will not be able to validate a lot of it if they insist on using third-person methods.

If anything, the areas that Western scientists are validating are the effects that these experiences leave behind. Research into meditation is only in its infancy. But so far, with meditation, scientists have discovered that there are different levels of consciousness that go beyond just the normal waking state. Many Western thinkers also accept that mind and consciousness can be separate, something which meditation reveals.

John Human refers to meditation as spiritual technology. Read this interesting article on meditation being used to increase body temperature:
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/ ... peratures/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 084858.htm

So then you are arguing that practical debate contains rhetoric debate as a subset?

So practical debate must be more effective then.

The two styles have some overlap. The effectiveness of one over the other would depend on the subject matter of debate.

The benefits and necessity of my approach
- The opponent doesn't simply have to rely on my word or the word of a scientist, but rather they can verify it for themselves.

To begin with why call this "your approach"?

I haven't noticed anyone else using this approach. I suspect many mystics in ancient history used some variation of it. Honestly, I don't really care for the credit, but I simply want a way to use experience as a style of debate - as a way of convincing people. I'm sure it would take time and perhaps delay responses until they have the experience, but that's only reasonable when the experience is there for everyone to have.

Perhaps if atheists were willing to withhold judgement on my claims. Take some time and meditate on what I'm saying, then they'd see the effect of my approach.

- Some topics can only be understood if or when someone experiences it. I don't expect to convince someone that disbelieves in the thrill of driving fast that they are wrong because of my experience or the experience of others. Any debate based solely on words or texts would have to end here. The best way to settle this debate is to employ a style that not only uses rhetoric but also offering evidence that the disbeliever can experience for himself. The same goes for a lot of the topics I deal with in regards to consciousness and experience.

You've lost me here entirely. Who can say that driving fast is "wrong"? All we can do is speak to the dangers of driving fast, and then allow everyone to chose whether or not they are willing to take those risks. None the less a practical approach (or scientific approach) is the best way to make a case for the dangers of driving fast.

I would rather replace "scientific" approach with "objective" approach. Remember, I view meditation as being an objective tool. It is a big factor if not the main factor that makes my practical debate style work (at least for the topics I tend to bring up). If there wasn't an easy, accessible, and objective tool that people could use to experience then my telling them to go experience would be just as impractical as telling people to repeat a scientific experiment that requires a lot of sophisticated technology.

So far what I've found is that a lot of the skeptics don't know what meditation is. To them it is just "relaxation" and they are closed off to anything beyond that.

- My view takes full advantage of the Eastern approach where religious experiences are largely "voluntary" instead of just hoping or waiting for some spirit contacts you.

To the best of my knowledge no credible Eastern religion has ever made any claim that if you meditate you will be contacted by a spirit.

Moreover, if such a claim were true it could easily be proven. And at this point we have absolutely no proof that anyone who has meditated as ever been contacted by a spirit. We do have people who claim to have been contacted by spirits, but none of them have ever produced any compelling evidence to show that they had experienced anything more than personal imagination.

Spirit contact (whether it be of God or a dead person) is a common way that people become aware of the supernatural in Western culture. In Eastern religions, there is a way to induce these experiences yourself without hoping or waiting on someone (God or otherwise) to open the door for you.

In fact, I'm not even so much into the Eastern religions as I am into meditation. I'm simply a spiritual seeker that loves to meditate. I've had my own experiences, and I've used a few of the scriptures from the East to help explain my experiences. So far, I've found some of it to be valid.

In fact, if there was something supernatural going on with meditation that fact would be easily demonstrated by a growing consistency of meditative experiences that are not only extremely similar, but are also providing truths about reality that people who do not meditate are unaware of.

Thus far in the entire history of the human race this has never happened.

There are commonalities among transcendent experiences, NDEs, OBEs, etc.

In fact, if you are familiar with the Easter Religions you should know that they are as diverse and divisive as any other religious movement. If there was any truth to the idea that meditation produces a single truth, then why aren't all the Eastern religions in perfect harmony with their experiences and claims?

As I mentioned earlier, I'm not an expert nor a strict believer of any religion. The main thing I picked up from the Eastern religions is meditation. I believe it is a tool that anyone can use to at least explore consciousness. Meditation is relevant to all religions in that it leads to a lot of the spiritual experiences that different religions bring up. It provides a "voluntary" way to bring on these experiences. For instance, the apostle Paul's OBE can be induced using meditation.

[Divine Insight]

As I mentioned earlier, I'm not an expert nor a strict believer of any religion. The main thing I picked up from the Eastern religions is meditation. I believe it is a tool that anyone can use to at least explore consciousness. There are common elements in the experiences that people go through when they use it. This is undeniable.

It's also undeniable that none of those shared experiences provide evidence for anything beyond the mere mundane fact that humans share a commonly evolved brain system as well as also sharing common social beliefs and traditions.

In other words, the fact that a social group of people all believe in reincarnation and imagine a potential spiritual afterlife, and then when they meditate they imagine these very same thoughts is hardly impressive.

In fact, this is precisely what any secularist scientist would predict.

There's just nothing here, other than people like yourself who would rather ignore the secular facts in favor of believing that there's something more to it than this.

Everything you claim about meditation has already been addressed by secularists with no problem.

There's just nothing there that pure secular psychology cannot explain.

As I've said, if there was anything supernatural to it, that would not only be easy to prove, but it would even become apparently obvious. Yet it has neither been proven, nor is it obvious.

So all you are doing is preaching illogical and irrational conclusions that can't be backed up by any serious or compelling evidence. Why not at least acknowledge this truth?

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 1 by Razorsedge]

Try this on for size:

My ‘enlightenment through meditation’ came from jumping from airplanes (for the government), climbing vertical rock faces (taught climbing), thousand mile bicycle tours (five, unsupported).

Those who think they have experienced true meditation MUST experience these things personally before they ‘understand’ well enough to discuss the matter intelligently.*

Does that clarify why demanding that people others experience ‘meditation' in prescribed ways in order to ‘understand’ is silly? Has it been established here that 'meditation' is anything more than mind games?

Regarding the “thrill of driving fast�: That assumes there is a ‘thrill’ for others (and says something about the speaker). Not everyone engages in ‘thrill seeking behaviors’ or is ‘thrilled’ by fast driving. Some regard it as the height of foolishness.

Regarding ‘prove my point’: One does not prove points in debate by requiring others to gain experiences.

Regarding ‘not really seeking truth’: No individual here has been appointed or anointed to be the decider of who does and does not ‘seek truth’ – self-opinion not withstanding.

*Presented for example only.

[Swami]

Fact: Many atheists convert after going through a religious experience.

When I make claims about consciousness I will point to this fact as evidence. If that is not enough then I will offer meditation as a way to verify. If that is not enough then the debate is over on my part and I will move on to someone else or address my points to the general audience.

[Divine Insight]

Fact: Many atheists convert after going through a religious experience.

When I make claims about consciousness I will point to this fact as evidence. If that is not enough then I will offer meditation as a way to verify. If that is not enough then the debate is over on my part and I will move on to someone else or address my points to the general audience.

Every time I post I am bouncing off what was said and addressing my points to the general audience.

Fact: Many people who have become religious due to "religious experience" have later realized the folly of this delusion and became atheists.

There are entire communities of ex-theists who even hold meetings to exchange their experience of having fallen prey to the fallacy of "religious experience". They often tell their story of how totally convinced they were of their religious experience, only to look back on those events in hindsight asking, "How could I have been so stupid?". But then defending their ability to truly be rational by pointing out the fact that they were indeed able to recognize the fallacy of their previous views.

So things you keep calling "evidence" is not evidence at all. If converting from atheism to becoming a believer via a religious experience were a one-way street, you might have a point. But it's not. So there is no evidence to support your irrational conclusions.

Again, this post has been a public service announcement, not intended to try to convince Razorsedge of anything. I'm just pointing out the flaws in his claims to those who might be interested.

[Swami]

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

Our disagreement stems from you not valuing meditation as an objective tool. If Western science were to adopt meditation as a scientific method for knowledge rather than as a clinical tool (mental health) then the experiences from it would have to be distinguished from the random experiences that you bring up.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

Our disagreement stems from you not valuing meditation as an objective tool. If Western science were to adopt meditation as a scientific method for knowledge rather than as a clinical tool (mental health) then the experiences from it would have to be distinguished from the random experiences that you bring up.

Your disagreement stems from the fact that you value your experiences as more valid than other's. You reveal this fact by calling the experiences DI brings up as random. Quite hypocritically, you continue to consider your experiences as authoritative.


Once again, it is clear that you don't value experience. You value only your experience. You consider it as valid and all others, unless they lead to the same conclusions you reach, as invalid. Your argument boils down to nothing more sophisticated than, "I'm right and you're wrong."



Tcg