![]() The following is a list of some of the issues I’ve seen (albeit some are more debatable than others): Over the years, however, I have also found that despite my respect for Resolutionism, it has some flaws. Thus, if judges use this paradigm, people just have to debate over what interpretations are valid in that paradigm, rather than whether that foundation is the best possible foundation (e.g., whether or not exceptions ought to be made). Such a paradigm has the significant benefit of relying on a more predictable and objective foundation (i.e., the rules). Still, the general idea underlying Rule-ism tends to follow a pattern such as “The rules say X my interpretation of X says that Y is important my interpretation of X/Y means that Z is irrelevant/illogical.” Because Resolutionism is one of the most important examples of Rule-ism (and is a major basis of Ace Peak’s “Omni” Theory), I will primarily focus on it. I have long put a heavy emphasis on paradigms like Resolutionism and what I’ll simply call “Rule-ism” (i.e., paradigm/theory that is derived from a league’s rules, which generally includes Resolutionism). Resolutionism and “Rule-ism” More Broadly: Their Characteristics and Weaknesses If we want to really understand and use whatever combination of paradigms works best, Pragmatism is better since it adjusts to aim for the goal of “better debate” and does not inherently exclude anything from consideration. There are ultimately a lot of specific justifications for recognizing this as a foundational point, but the central idea that covers most of these justifications is “it’s important to have firm foundations for thought.” While some paradigms like Resolutionism may happen to produce the best debate in most situations, they do not by design take a “whatever works best” approach they follow rules which may not actually produce the best debate in some situations. This is especially noticeable in those definition debates where the two sides debate as if there is some singular, objective meaning for a subjective word, rather than quickly recognizing that the goal should not be “which definition is ‘objectively correct’” but rather something more like “which definition produces the best debate.” It also illustrates part of the problem (or “inherency”) with the status quo: this principle may seem obvious when it’s actually pointed out, but it doesn’t always get so explicitly identified and implemented, such as when people are operating on “tradition autopilot.” I have repeatedly seen theory disagreements boil down to trying to justify/reject some novel/controversial action in relation to some tradition/standard like Resolutionism or “burden of proof,” without the sides stopping to consider whether that standard is actually necessary or helpful. Yet, in the context of his Omni Theory series, this felt like burying the lede. Yet, it’s important to understand the implications in contrast with other theories: it is by implication saying “if following a paradigm like Resolutionism (what Joseph Abell at Ace Peak has described as the core of “ Omni Theory”), flow-heavy purist judging, requiring evidence to back up most claims, or something else leads to a bad outcome in a certain situation, one should make exceptions to following those paradigms in that situation.” In other words: none of these paradigms are all-encompassing they are not the ultimate foundation or scale.Įven Joseph Abell in an article earlier this year gave some similar sentiment about the importance of defending models based on how they make debate better or worse. In fact, it may almost sound obvious when phrased that way. makes debate better is what should be preferred.” There is a lot to unpack with that statement (which will be done in a future article), but to some people that claim may not come off as controversial. In the simplest of terms, Pragmatism Theory is mostly just “whatever paradigm/theory/rule/definition/etc. Instead, this article will discuss ways in which Pragmatism is ignored/overlooked, “alternative” paradigms (which can still largely exist within Pragmatism), and the ultimate “harms of the status quo.” How Pragmatism is Overlooked This article still won’t get into the weeds of what Pragmatism is or isn’t (aside from what I’ve already said about it), including how to apply it. In my previous article I discussed some of the “goals and anti-goals of debate.” It was partially a standalone topic, but it also served as a lead-in to this broader series on what I’ve decided to call Pragmatism Theory (or just “Pragmatism”).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |