Communication is a big part of our life. We can’t be social beings without communication. A very long time ago I wrote an article on Body language and how we overcome that obstacle on the Internet by using emoticons. Now I want to talk about our written language, the meaning of words, because we need them to make proposals and arguments to defend what we believe is the right way to play.
The written word becomes very important in debating about political actions in a game like eRepublik. A wise lady once wrote:
(http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/reflections-on-game-vs-real-life-1683399/1/20) words are a powerful tool in games like eRepublik. Words can lift you up but can also put you down. Especially in the eWorld where the most powerful tool of communication isn't in play, body language.
Also have a look at this last article from MaryamQ.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxYgcM4ftiQ for my Dutch speaking readers
eBelgium, like other eRepublik countries, has the habit to make up a constitution and laws. This is a part of the game which is played on their forum. The use of laws and constitution makes it so that people can interpret most of those written subjects in different ways. Of course this can’t be done without a numerous of arguments.
Everybody apparently hears, reads something different in a text. Who is to judge if this or that is the right or wrong explanation.
We have to ask ourselves can we know the whole truth without objecting to interpretation differences and hindering creativity.
According to Friedrich Carl von Savigny there are 4 different ways of interpreting written text.
Grammatical interpretation, historical interpretation, systematic interpretation and teleological interpretation.
If all those different interpretation methods are used on one and the same text you may find that the conclusion can be very different, maybe even contradictory.
If you look more ingame you see that their is a media module present, again in need of a lot of words. In Real life, journalists are bound to objectivity and being impartial. These are the circumstances the journalist needs to obey to do the job well.
But can anybody ever be objective? You can try but I will argue against it.
As a journalist you decide what news to cover, what to write, what not to write. Which aspect of the case you do a depth research on can determine the way an article is written.
That brings us to the methodology of objective and subjective interpreting. It’s important to know there is a different view when it comes to objective word explanation in dictionaries and the philosophical approach. To say an entity does objectively exist means that its existence does not relate to someones consciousness of it. For example, the sun would still exist even if none is conscious of this. Of course there are arguments against it, as for example Hegel and Berkeley are arguing that “all that be” has an awareness nature. So from this point of view it would not be true that the Sun simply existed without someone observing it, no. Because what we indicate as “sun”indicates only the experience of the real potential “the sun” can be. Without that experience we would not have known or appointed it as such. The meaning of an “object” would be: What a subject is experiencing.
What follows is ...
Arguing is one of those activities that most people do, but there are few who do it well. many don’t grasp the concept of a logical argument and how to apply it correctly. Nevertheless, arguing is an essential skill of critical thinking and playing a game with a political module. The way we argue reflects the way we think, how we weigh our decisions and how we approach the believes of another. The very purpose of an argument is sometimes misunderstood. I have almost daily discussions. That does not mean that I go around and pick daily fights with others.
When I play eRepublik I have daily arguments that have to do with trying to convince others of my believes or solving conflicting conclusions on a factual matter. In most discussions, I am confronted with the other person who has taken a position that he fearlessly defends like he was a highly paid lawyer who defends his client. This hostile approach is not constructive. It would be far more productive if In fact, the parties should try to find common ground and then carefully move forward from that common ground to resolve any differences.
The beauty of a logical argument is that ...they are logical. It is in some sense like mathematics. In mathematics, 1 +1 must be 2. If there is disagreement about it, it can be finally resolved in an objective manner.
For example: If two people came to a different decision for a factual claim, it must be on of them is wrong . They can’t be both right, that’s not possible. So that means that one of them or both must have made an error in the argumentation Best thing to do is to let both parties work together to examine each other's arguments in order to find errors and problems. Keep in mind that this only works if the discussion is about factual statements, not subjective feelings or opinions.
There is no way to solve a dispute based on ethical statements. Maybe you would like the French music better than the Dutch music but there is no way to prove this with logic and facts. Of course it can help if you state that the conclusion you made is based on ethical theories rather that logical theories. It will avoid endless arguments about something that is inherently insoluble.
All arguments have the same basic structure: A therefore B. They begin with one or more premises (A), which is a fact or assumption upon which the argument is based. They then apply a logical principle (therefore) to arrive at a conclusion (.
For example, if you begin with the premises that A=B and B=C, you can apply the logical principle of equivalence to conclude that A=C.
The decision can be regarded as valid if all premises of the claim are true and the logical connections must also be valid. I use the word "valid" here specifically to refer to such acts because it is always possible that a decision is correct, even if not valid. The reason is that it is possible to give misinformation or to use logic in a wrong way to come at a valid conclusion. Invalid arguments prove not necessarily a wrong conclusion.
Breakdown a statement in its components is a very useful exercise, because it allows us to examine both our own claims as those of others and critically analyze their validity. This is an excellent way to sharpen your thinking and to avoid bias, and to build effective claims.
Study your premises
As explained above, for a claim to be correct, all its premises must be true. Often, different people come to different decisions because they start from different premises.So its a good start that with examine all premises from all different claims.
There are three types of potential problems with premises. The first and most obvious is that a premise may be wrong. For example if someone claims there is no help in eBelgium for new eBelgian citizens because the government doesn’t spend any money. Than that the claim is invalid for the simple fact that it can be proven that the Government does spend money on citizen programs.
An other of premise error occurs when one or more are non guaranteed assumptions. The premise may or may not be true, but its probability is not large enough to serve as a premise for a claim. To identify all assumptions which depend on a statement is often the most critical step in analyzing a claim. Very regularly people come to different decisions because of different assumptions made. .Very often people choose the assumptions that fit best with the decisions they prefer. Psychological tests show that most people start with the decisions they wish for and then look to the arguments that support this statement through reverse engineering. This process is called "rationalization".
One way of solving the issue of the use of assumptions as premise is to reveal the assumption in advance. Such arguments are called Hypnoteses. For example one may say: “For the sake of argument I presume … .
Now when two people are studying the arguments and realise that they both use different assumptions as premise they can at least agree on not to agree. They will be aware of the fact that their dispute can’t be solved as it stands and they are in need of more information to shed more light on which of the assumptions are the most probable.
The third kind of error is the most false premise: the hidden premise. It is obvious that if a disagreement is based on a hidden premise, the disagreement will be insoluble. So it's a good idea, when you come to an impasse in resolving disputes, to return and see if there are assumptions involved that were not cited.
If you have managed to read all this I will have a huge respect for you.
What is this?You are reading an article written by a citizen of eRepublik, an immersive multiplayer strategy game based on real life countries. Create your own character and help your country achieve its glory while establishing yourself as a war hero, renowned publisher or finance guru.