NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a topic that stemmed from the "Creationism finally extinct" thread, where it was suggested that if you want a broader view or to widen your opinion of a topic, you should read a "negative" article about it, one that attempts to dethrone and debunk the subject.

I vehemently disagree. Debunking is the most vile form of negative thinking, and not a good place to go to learn anything about anything. All it does is attempt to tear down whatever it opposes, usually with incomplete information and much emotion. Any person's time would be much better spent learning about a topic than reading a debunk of it (there's a reason debunk rhymes with junk, you know).

There. I've suitably debunked that idea. (And you didn't learn anything, did you?)

There. I've suitably debunked that idea. (And you didn't learn anything, did you?)

Ow...My brain.


Seriously though, I suppose you are right. Sometimes reading a debunking first simply confuses you. I read "Tyranny of a Construct" in my freshman year of college; it supposedly debunked the Feudal-era way of thinking about things, the vassal-state relationship was apperantly NOT the way things really were.

Problem was, it was half of a conversation. The article talked at me as if I knew about specific articles, authors, and complex theories as if I knew what they meant. In fact, this article was my introduction to them.

Such a waste. I understand that the article was supposedly big stuff when it came out, revolutionary. But I can only remember the nonsensical rantings of a junior professor without tenure.

Well, if I had not had some fairly lengthy debates with you, I would have learnt from that that Willamena wants and supports a closed mono perspective approach to knowledge. That all things known, regardless of their actual congruence with reality in any form, are to be accepted as stated, and that criticism only has a worthless and destructive aspect.

I actually believe that people should attempt to argue from any position that they hold in despise. This would make them think about the reasons and thinking behind holding that position. I have had to, in the past, argue for a collective communist system, while I am a Classic Liberal. This I believe has strengthened my position as I now know about the strengths of collectivism as well as about its weaknesses, and I also had to look at my real position looking for its weaknesses, and as such have been able to ine tune my beliefs.

Well, if I had not had some fairly lengthy debates with you, I would have learnt from that that Willamena wants and supports a closed mono perspective approach to knowledge. That all things known, regardless of their actual congruence with reality in any form, are to be accepted as stated, and that criticism only has a worthless and destructive aspect.

I actually believe that people should attempt to argue from any position that they hold in despise. This would make them think about the reasons and thinking behind holding that position. I have had to, in the past, argue for a collective communist system, while I am a Classic Liberal. This I believe has strengthened my position as I now know about the strengths of collectivism as well as about its weaknesses, and I also had to look at my real position looking for its weaknesses, and as such have been able to ine tune my beliefs.
Oh, dear. :-)

I'm just pointing out the very obvious fact that destructive criticism is not very useful, and for someone to hold it up as a recommendation strikes me as alarming (and a bit annoying), as happened in that thread. I'm all for constructive criticism.