Reply #97: Thanks

[MojoKrunch]

//I think you misunderstood.//
Won't be the first time. :)

//What I was saying was, some people would say "prayer really does have the power to cause supernatual intervention, and the reason this experiment didn't show that is because it was set up wrong." I would not be one of those people.//
Ahhh... ok.

//I was saying that I have no problem with the experiment, or the results of the experiment, just the scope of the conclusions some desire to draw based in the evidence of the experiment.//
Fair enough.
Thanks for clearing that up.

//I couldn't agree more! This is a very large part of the problem. And to be perfectly honest, the entire thread between Trotsky and myself could have been avoided if in the beginning both of us would have asked each other to clarify our terms.//
Isn't that usually the case unless both parties are familiar with the formal structure of debate?

//Because I can almost guaruntee you that if I had asked Trotsky that my response to his definition would have been, "well if you define it like that then I totally agree with you on every point." And I bet you that in response to my definiiton he would have said something like, "well I'm not sure you are using the term correctly, but if we stipulate that definition, then I have no problem with what you are saying."//
Yes.
Which is why in my first post I talked about the paranormal, no supernatural, aspects of this experiment... and that Duke U. has a tradition of paranormal research.

//A lot of arguments are really about ambiguous terminology more than they are core issues. :)//
True.
Cutting thru the misunderstandings is less difficult than actually *agreeing* on terms, however.
In my experiences with argument/debate with certain types of people(usually online) the adage seems to be "he who controls the definitions controls the argument".
And there isn't much you can do if you can't even agree on the definition of terms.

Mojo