Humanities desk
< February 8	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 10 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 9[edit]

Amber Fort[edit]

How is this source? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In general, questions about the appropriateness of sources are best directed to Wikipedia:Reliable source noticeboard, but since you asked here this time, I'll give my response. I assume, based on your prior thread, you are asking if the source is sufficient for establishing the name of the person who was responsible for building the Amber Fort. Probably not; a source's reliability depends in part on the expertise of the source for the topic in question. I would expect a source written by someone who was a recognized expert in Indian History, and it would probably have extensive writing on the construction of the fort itself. A single passing mention of the fort in a paper about an entirely unrelated topic is probably not that useful. Instead, you should be looking for books and journal articles written by historians who do research in, and write about, the place and time in question. I hope that helps! --Jayron 32 13:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A pretty much perfect answer. Hope not to annoying to add this [1], an example of a paper published by Proceedings of the Indian History Congress that should fulfil these criteria. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Essay about sophistry, college debate (help me identify this essay)[edit]

Hello. I recall reading an essay about a speaker who was invited to attend a debate, and afterward he was congratulating the winner on her argumentative skill. She then admitted that the position she successfully defended was the opposite of the one she believed. The speaker then got offended because the value of argumentation was perverted, should be used to pursue the truth, avoid sophistry, etc. It went on from there.

I likely first encountered this essay in an "Introduction to Philosophy" style textbook. I'm thinking the author was someone like Peter Singer or Bertrand Russell or Richard Dawkins or Stephen Jay Gould or someone like this, but I can't find it anywhere. Any help? Thanks. Llamabr (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't identify the essay, but I think the winner's approach was justified. If Speaker A cannot prevail against the arguments of Speaker B even when Speaker B secretly agrees with A, then A needs to improve their argumentative skills and/or find better arguments. In the long run this will help to support the point of view (which may be "the truth", or not) that A and (secretly) B share. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.141.181 (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being able to articulate the best arguments for the opposition and against your own position allows you to form a stronger, more informed opinion.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 23:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I went to an all-boys school. We regularly had formal debates with our "sister" school. We were given the topic (let's say abortion) beforehand to prepare our arguments but the for/against choice was decided by coin toss just before the debate started. 41.23.55.195 (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the three responses. The main arguments here are that B should try to have a stronger argument than A, that one should understand one's opponent's position, and that there is rhetorical skill to be learned in defending a false position. No doubt there is some truth to each, though to be fair to the original author, I didn't present the full argument (mainly because I can't remember it, which is why I'm looking for it), so it's difficult to object on the basis of my incomplete summary. But I believe he may reply that what we should seek is the truth, not "winning" debate, that simply being more persuasive is not the same as being right, and if studying argumentation is valuable it is so because it is a tool for discovering the truth, rather than an end unto itself. I certainly appreciate the feedback, though if anyone comes across the essay I mean I would appreciate the opportunity to read it again. Llamabr (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with what you say, I would observe that if something is factually true, there ought to be unassailable arguments supporting its truth. If there are not, we may be in the realm of subjective and perhaps unexamined assumptions, and unagreed definitions. Sorry I can't help with identifying the actual essay in question. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.141.181 (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your question seemed to frame this as a competition and not as a true debate. In such situations, it is a learning exercise. Which you admitted was a valid use, so I'm not sure what the problem is. If anyone can identify the essay in question, I would like to read it as well. Perhaps that would clarify the issue. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is the faulty premise that there must be objective truths in all matters. That the world is round, that the sky is blue, that the moon is not made of green cheese, these are statements for which the truth value is binary; it either is or isn't true. There are issues which are so complex, that which cannot be statement to be definitively true in all contexts, or other matters for which it is only a matter of taste or opinion. We can debate the merits of pineapple on pizza all day, but there's no objectively true answer to that one. Debate, as a means of rhetoric, is not about proving things that are objectively true, it's about convincing people of the merits of a position for which there is not a verifiable true answer. It makes no sense to have a debate over things for which the truth value is well established. I can say "It's 27 degrees celsius outside right now". We can have a debate over it, but that's silly: We can also just check the thermometer. However, if we say "Society would be better if richer people paid more taxes", well, that's a complex problem that doesn't have a clear answer, which makes it a nice topic for debate. If we say "Balsamic vinaigrette is the best dressing for a salad", that's a matter of taste, and thus is a nice topic for debate. If we say "Oxygen has a molar mass of about 16 grams per mole", that's an easily verifiable statement, and the answer is likely an objective truth, so it isn't a good debatable topic. The premise that we use debate to find truths doesn't bear out. We use debate to convince people that one position or another is in some way better, even though we have no way to prove it one way or the other, either because the issue is so complex that a simple answer doesn't suffice (a plurium interrogationum) or it's a matter of taste only (De gustibus non est disputandum). Debate only works in places where there is room for nuance. --Jayron 32 16:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, "winning" a debate may be due, not to having the better arguments, but to presenting arguments that conform better to the prejudices of the jury. Surely, though, someone holding the conviction that studying argumentation is valuable because it is a tool for discovering the truth, is well aware of the fact that argumentative skills are often wielded to win a debate rather than to seek the truth. If they respond as if surprised, the surprise has to be feigned. --Lambiam 22:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, everyone, for your replies. It's hard to avoid straw man arguments against the original argument, as we havn't read it, and as I can't identify the particular essay, I'm also not defending it well. In any case, I suspect it was a modern day Protagoras dialog, critical of sophistry in favor of philosophy. I don't necessarily think this discussion can help but to derail further without studying the original argument, which I'll post if my research turns it up. Thanks again. Llamabr (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]