If two people stand on opposite walls of the same room, their view of said room is different. It's the same with 'facts'. What I see may not be what another sees when reading the same words. Hence, I agree with Art's statement:
Quote:
I tend to see so called "facts" as measurements and calculations taken from particular points of view within certain sets of parameters.
These so called "facts" ultimately are based on belief systems - belief systems based solely on assumptions.
|
Debate is the give and take of those views within that room, trying to make the other see what you see; successful debate is the crossing over of those views.
Discussion is describing what the one sees so that the other can understand and relate to that view.
Emotions are difficult to eradicate from any of these tradings of views since we all know what we see is right-to us. If I say "this is how I see it", of course someone else might tell me I'm seeing it wrong. But, they're not standing where I am, nor am I standing where they are. To me, any conflict can be very easily done away with simply by exchanging standings and seeing the different POV. It is an unfortunate 'fact' of life that some people are cemented down and inmovable.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jinnkai
I prefer discussing the concrete, the real, the applied, and the substantive. Most importantly, the realistic. Things based in LIFE AS IT OCCURS, day to day.. not in utopian and idealistic theories so removed from reality.
|
While that is preferrable, your reality is not mine and vice versa. Example: A religious devotee might read the story of Noah and proclaim it a 'miracle of God'-a fact. I read it and see a moral-based fairytale. We might each try to debate and change the other's way of thinking, but that doesn't make it any less a fact to either one in the meantime.