• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scientific vs. Logical vs. Creative Mind

What's the most important debate mindset?

  • Scientific

    Votes: 3 16.7%

  • Logical

    Votes: 10 55.6%

  • Creative

    Votes: 2 11.1%

  • Other

    Votes: 3 16.7%
  • Total voters
    18
Winston

Winston

Give me convenience or give me death
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Messages
24,765
Reaction score
24,150
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
What is the most important type of mindset to have, when debating people here?

Is it more important to be scientific, with peer-reviewed research to support your theories..

or, can one get by deducing his way through a problem?
 
Those are all different tools to be used at different times. Or in conjunction with each other.
 
Harshaw said:
Those are all different tools to be used at different times.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I suppose one can have all of them at his/her disposal,

they don't cancel each other out.
 
Creative and passionate.
 
"Logic (part of the trivium) and science (part of the quadrivium) both comprise the liberal arts.

However both logic and science, like metaphysics and religion, rely upon first principles that cannot be demonstrated. In logic they are called major premises. In geometry they are called definitions, postulates, and common notions. And in science they are called hypotheses."

Bertrand Russell
 
They all important...I would even say you're missing emotional, though lots of people would probably disagree with that. We're human beings, not computers, and anyone that tells you that emotion shouldn't matter is missing the point. We are emotional creatures, and we know that denying those emotions are mentally unhealthy. Logic only debaters in political discussion generally get it wrong, because they fail to see the emotional side of the issue. (Something I struggle with, being a numbers guy myself)

Ya, it's an interesting question, but like most things I don't think there's one right answer...life is very seldom simple enough to be boiled down that way, and why debating politics with a goal of "win" is kind of impossible, since depending on your leaning, the win is very subjective through the eyes of the audience.
 
OlNate said:
They all important...I would even say you're missing emotional, though lots of people would probably disagree with that. We're human beings, not computers, and anyone that tells you that emotion shouldn't matter is missing the point. We are emotional creatures, and we know that denying those emotions are mentally unhealthy. Logic only debaters in political discussion generally get it wrong, because they fail to see the emotional side of the issue. (Something I struggle with, being a numbers guy myself)

Ya, it's an interesting question, but like most things I don't think there's one right answer...life is very seldom simple enough to be boiled down that way, and why debating politics with a goal of "win" is kind of impossible, since depending on your leaning, the win is very subjective through the eyes of the audience.
Click to expand...

I agree with you quite a bit OlNate. That's why I'm not worried about the machines taking over. They can't program them to feel emotions and make decisions based off of an emotional or evolutionary readout, lol.
 
Talent without passion is nothing. I have a talent in Math which I hate.
 
Winston said:
What is the most important type of mindset to have, when debating people here?

Is it more important to be scientific, with peer-reviewed research to support your theories..

or, can one get by deducing his way through a problem?
Click to expand...

To be scientific is to be logical and creatively imaginative.

I think it is also helpful to be able to spell, ooops.
 
Winston said:
What is the most important type of mindset to have, when debating people here?

Is it more important to be scientific, with peer-reviewed research to support your theories..

or, can one get by deducing his way through a problem?
Click to expand...

How would you separate scientific and logical?
 
Winston said:
"Logic (part of the trivium) and science (part of the quadrivium) both comprise the liberal arts.

However both logic and science, like metaphysics and religion, rely upon first principles that cannot be demonstrated. In logic they are called major premises. In geometry they are called definitions, postulates, and common notions. And in science they are called hypotheses."

Bertrand Russell
Click to expand...

Every time I played chess with my friend Pigeon, Pigeon did the same thing.... crap all over the board and strut around, win or lose, like a winner. Still, often times, when I can't find anyone else to play with, I still ask Pigeon to play.

IMO, most of us come to DP for Love of the interaction. Of the options available, I voted "Logical" as most important. Of course, no one factor alone makes for quality debate.
 
Cardinal said:
How would you separate scientific and logical?
Click to expand...

People can get through problems without much science, by logical deduction. I think a great example of this would be the Black Lives Matter, All Lives Matter, Blue Lives Matter, phenomenon we've seen in the past 4 years. Excluding all conspiracy theories of a Soros mastermind, planting BLM activists to sow seeds of dissention, and stir chaos in society...

People that support All Lives Matter, may do so by logical deduction, or just loyalty to the cause. Same with Black Lives Matter. However, if you get into the scientific minutiae, with data, of race's correlation to crime rates, race's correlation to police brutality, or, on the flip side, the All Lives Matter people can support their claims with scientific data showing, that cops are justified and they don't use excessive force. Sometimes they can be misled by data, both sides can be.. and a purely logical assessment needn't delve deep into scientific data.

Another example, I've seen people make reasonable logical deductions here, and then just get crushed by someone who has scientific peer-reviewed studies to back them up.

It's an interesting question, the more I think of it, does science require logic, but logic not require science?
 
A combination of all three but logic should prevail when there is no scientific fact to support or disprove. Creativity could play a role in presentation. I disagree that emotion needs to be equally important as these 3 others for the simple reason that emotions can be played upon/manipulated one way or the other. A person can be and should be empathetic to a degree but not to the point it allows/prevents them to make choices/decisions that would not necessarily be made if the emotional factor is removed - for example a crime of passion is still a crime - correct?... but by calling it a crime of passion it's almost as if we make an excuse for the criminal act because emotions (aka passion) got in the way.
 
Winston said:
Yeah, I suppose one can have all of them at his/her disposal,

they don't cancel each other out.
Click to expand...

I don't believe anyone can effectively debate without all 3. Which one is the most important varies depending on the topic being debated.
 
Winston said:
Another example, I've seen people make reasonable logical deductions here, and then just get crushed by someone who has scientific peer-reviewed studies to back them up.

It's an interesting question, the more I think of it, does science require logic, but logic not require science?
Click to expand...
Good science requires logic. Plenty of scientific peer-reviewed studies are crushed by pointing out logical flaws in underlying assumptions.

Yes, as a discipline, logic has been around far longer than science.
 
OlNate said:
They all important...I would even say you're missing emotional, though lots of people would probably disagree with that. We're human beings, not computers, and anyone that tells you that emotion shouldn't matter is missing the point. We are emotional creatures, and we know that denying those emotions are mentally unhealthy. Logic only debaters in political discussion generally get it wrong, because they fail to see the emotional side of the issue. (Something I struggle with, being a numbers guy myself)

Ya, it's an interesting question, but like most things I don't think there's one right answer...life is very seldom simple enough to be boiled down that way, and why debating politics with a goal of "win" is kind of impossible, since depending on your leaning, the win is very subjective through the eyes of the audience.
Click to expand...
While I agree with your sentiments here, in that the attribute of emotionality is a worthwhile component to make personal decisions in life compatibility, I respectfully do not see their use in debate - at least as a debating technique.

In fact, I believe emotions detract from one's ability to debate at their highest and best level. I see emotionality as detracting from the truth and reality, with truth and reality being the goal and winning-hand in any debate I enjoin.
 
Winston said:
People can get through problems without much science, by logical deduction. I think a great example of this would be the Black Lives Matter, All Lives Matter, Blue Lives Matter, phenomenon we've seen in the past 4 years. Excluding all conspiracy theories of a Soros mastermind, planting BLM activists to sow seeds of dissention, and stir chaos in society...

People that support All Lives Matter, may do so by logical deduction, or just loyalty to the cause. Same with Black Lives Matter. However, if you get into the scientific minutiae, with data, of race's correlation to crime rates, race's correlation to police brutality, or, on the flip side, the All Lives Matter people can support their claims with scientific data showing, that cops are justified and they don't use excessive force. Sometimes they can be misled by data, both sides can be.. and a purely logical assessment needn't delve deep into scientific data.

Another example, I've seen people make reasonable logical deductions here, and then just get crushed by someone who has scientific peer-reviewed studies to back them up.

It's an interesting question, the more I think of it, does science require logic, but logic not require science?
Click to expand...

The scientific method is logical. Logic doesn't need to use/involve science. MHO...
 
Chomsky said:
While I agree with your sentiments here, in that the attribute of emotionality is a worthwhile component to make personal decisions in life compatibility, I respectfully do not see their use in debate - at least as a debating technique.

In fact, I believe emotions detract from one's ability to debate at their highest and best level. I see emotionality as detracting from the truth and reality, with truth and reality being the goal and winning-hand in any debate I enjoin.
Click to expand...

Yes, and further:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion
 
straykatz said:
A combination of all three but logic should prevail when there is no scientific fact to support or disprove. Creativity could play a role in presentation. I disagree that emotion needs to be equally important as these 3 others for the simple reason that emotions can be played upon/manipulated one way or the other. A person can be and should be empathetic to a degree but not to the point it allows/prevents them to make choices/decisions that would not necessarily be made if the emotional factor is removed - for example a crime of passion is still a crime - correct?... but by calling it a crime of passion it's almost as if we make an excuse for the criminal act because emotions (aka passion) got in the way.
Click to expand...
My feelings exactly!

My hierarchy would be the same:

1] Empirical evidence
2] Logical conclusion
3] Creative expression

Emotions, IMO, colour and inject possible error.

I also believe my order above can occasionally flip #2 & 3. Once in awhile we have a shift in paradigm brought about by creative thought. An example is the theory of relativity, which may explain why Einstein was quoted as considering himself a philosopher firstly, before all else!
 


Kind of interesting video on climate change and how scientists aren't winning the climate change debate with science alone.
 
I favor logic for debate, it's hard to do "good science" via written forum posts, if you know what I mean.
You can cite scientific sources for data, that's helpful, but you can't really do experiments and you likely don't have time to rigorously analyze research, etc., it would be like a real F/t job.
Creativity is important when you are trying to reduce it down to its core components, or to find a novel way to illustrate something that your opponent may better understand, etc.

I think the poll could have including emotion and sophistry. I learned about sophistry via these types of forums, I think it's basically a progenitor of attorneys/lawyers as a profession.
A central theme being that you can take any sufficiently complex argument, flip it around, and successfully debate it's opposite almost as well. This forms the basis for prosecution/defense.

It also mentions the way that you can defeat the opposition when you specifically attack the strengths of their argument, etc. In any case, sophistry IMO is what good opposition will use, and so to know it yourself, is important. But its designed to simply "oppose"or win an argument persasively, and not differentiate truth, and it includes no accommodation at all for ethics/virtue. The age old fight being between the philosophers, and the unethical, money seeking, truth-bending sophists...

I mean, taken from a summary of thousands of years ago, this is 100% applicable today:
The only citizens who had the money to learn from the Sophists came from the aristocratic class, meaning that many citizens were unable to learn from them. Sophists were thought to teach these aristocrats how to manipulate the public by catering to popular opinion, rather than being concerned with the truth.[3]
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism

Kind of relevant isn't it!
 
Last edited:
Truthfully I think you need all 3 but if I had to pick one, I would say logical because logical covers creative and scientific...
 
While all of them are important at different points in time, you asked which one is most important and I'd say being logical. Unfortunately, lots of people, not just here but everywhere, are just emotional, they wouldn't know logic if it bit them. That's why most debates go nowhere.
 
In a debate all three are useful, logic probably above all, but creativity stands behind both logic and science, and logic behind science, and the appeal to science, a revisionary project, is the weakest of the three. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom