Political/pseudo-scientific debate

Debates tend to place people with different, often opposing views in turn to make reasoned-sounding arguments to convince them and/or the audience of their point of view. Since there is a large spectrum of viewpoints, all good debaters take advantage of correlated viewpoints. In debates, these are way more important and effective than raw facts and logic. For any topic (say Global Warming) one starts with an indisputable fact (greenhouse gases can cause global warming) and attach it in a logical sounding sequence to the desired conclusion - (we need to act to reduce greenhouse gases urgently).

Visually, this process is modelled by placing everybody on a metaphorical line, even being forced by the logic of the debate to go on the line. The peer group of people near you on the line tend to have very correlated views and can be targeted by the logic of the debater specifically to push you in one direction or another. Richard Dawkins does this very effectively in the God Delusion by asking the question "What probability do you give of there being an omnipotent God which created the universe?" Thus the target audience (those who are unsure in any way) become captive to the argument.

Corellation of viewpoints of experts is often confused with logical corollary. For example, most climate experts that believe in the certainty of global warming being anthropogenic, also believe that targets of carbon emission cuts of 20% to 50% within a couple of generations are necessary to save the planet. Many in the global warming debate actually pass off the argument (If global warming is caused by humans, large emission cuts are necessary to save the planet) as scientific logic.

To generalise, just because in a scientific peer group people who believe A also believe B does not mean if A is true then B must be true.

I, for one, don't think that open debates forward either the scientific process or philosophy in general. Therefore, for objectively reasoned arguments, logic based on correlated views must be avoided:

2)Perception is NOT reality. "Political" or policy arguments on which large numbers of individuals have a perceived interest are correctly placed on a continuum LINE. This is because people's views tend to be highly correllated (with their peers on the same part of the line). This is the only practical way to come to conclusions when there are a large number of individuals in the argument. Marconomics states that it is both possible and likely that no conceptual point on the line has got any of the right combination of facts or logic. Correllation in viewpoint is not the same as a logical statement. For instance if there are two logical statements A and B - even if everybody within a peer group believe both A & B, this does in no way prove (and should not even be assumed) the "if A then B" logical statement in a scientific context(even if those in the peer group are scientists).