In Defence of Argument
The scenario is not unfamiliar. It is especially prevalent online. Often, discussions that are initiated in forums and blogs with a view to fruitful and constructive discussion end up as hostile slanging matches and even personal name-calling whenever disagreement arises. As a result, people have lamented such discussion as a waste of time, tending to be unfruitful, unproductive and unsatisfactory. My proposition is that arguments resulting in disagreement can be fruitful and constructive, but some basic rules must be put in place in order for such discussion to thrive.
Foremost, it is crucial that the engaging parties identify their agenda for discussion. Is it that:
1) engaging parties believe in the veracity of their argument and are genuinely keen to spread their view, which they already deem as unshakeable truth?
2) engaging parties seek affirmation in their views by attempting to have other people agree with their views, or to engage in argument/debate with responding parties with the goal of getting the responding parties to concede that the argument of the engaging party is indeed true?
3) engaging parties seek primarily to benefit themselves by (a) viewing arguments/debates as an opportunity to construct their views into a presentable, organised and coherent structure and to test one's existing views by subjecting them to robust scrutiny and criticism; and (b) viewing arguments/debates as an opportunity to absorb new views espoused by responding parties which may be more plausible to them so that engaging parties may add onto their present views, having the flexibility to alter them if such alternative views have greater plausibility to the engaging party?
The basic natures of agendas (1) and (2) demand that the ultimate goal of the argument is to seek the concession of the 'audience', or the other responding, debating/arguing parties. Unfortunately the views of most of such responding parties are likely to be so entrenched that this disagreement is unlikely.
More specifically, for example, for agenda (1) the engaging party will purport a supposed truth, and the responding party will often be denying that truth (assuming a disagreement arises). The engaging party fails to meet his agenda and gets frustrated.
For agenda (2), the engaging party purports his view, hoping the responding party endorses it. If there is disagreement, the engaging party proceeds to force the responding party to concede to the veracity of its argument. If the responding party refuses to budge, engaging party is upset, discouraged and may perhaps turn offensive. It all goes downhill from there. If the responding party does indeed concede, the victory may be but an empty one. (See final paragraph for an elaboration on this point.)
Arguments can only proceed on a fruitful basis if there is the basic agreement that that both engaging and responding parties are arguing with the agreed premise of agenda (3)- that is, parties are all here to learn. Their respective aims are not to 'convert' the other party to their views, but to test and refine their own views. Should any views put out by the other party appear to them more plausible than any other views they hold, they can adopt those new views for their own benefit. The crux is seeing discussion and even a potential disagreement as an opportunity to build upon their current views. The aim is not to force a general across-the-board agreement. There must already be an initial general acceptance that the outcome of the discussion may even be a total polarity of views. Parties can nevertheless see the discussion and disagreement as a 'marketplace'/'buffet' where the 'wares'/'dishes' in the form of ideas are being offered for free - parties can simply partake from what they find useful from the information that is thrown out in the course of the discussion. With this basic agreement in mind, discussion can then be more constructive and fruitful.
Other basic rules may include:
(i) When one party disagrees with another, one must give a satisfactory explanation. Reasons such as "your view is silly/irrational/unprogressive/stupid" are insufficiently explanatory. Respect for the other party should be shown by caring to elaborate should one wish to criticise.
(ii) Number your arguments. Often discussions are most unsatisfactory when a party chooses to be selective by engaging in only some topics (in which the party presumably fancies its chances of 'winning'). Numbering forces engagement and response on the points a party deems important. As basic protocol for discussion, the responding party should address all the numbered points. This will prevent the responding party from 'running away' from making certain responses to certain arguments.
(iii) Be honest. When a party thinks the views offered by another party are sensible and plausible, they should concede as such. Concession should not be seen as a failure but a step towards a more plausible solution.
(iv) As an extension to the above, do not let ego get into the way of the discussion. If a new view does indeed appear to one to be more plausible, why insist that one's older, originally purported view is correct just for the sake of 'winning the argument'? The goal is to add plausibility.
(v) Never engage in personal attacks. Always attack only the argument. "You're just being silly/immature" comes to mind as a negative example.
It is tempting to say that a view is more plausible when more people concede to its veracity. However, there is no direct relationship between the number of people subscribing to a view, and the veracity of that view. Many years ago it was blasphemy to suggest that the Earth was round and not flat. The best we can do is to honestly examine our view with a most critical eye and ask ourselves: with every subsequent amendment and refinement we make, is the view we hold becoming more logically plausible, to the best of our logical and rational limitations?
Foremost, it is crucial that the engaging parties identify their agenda for discussion. Is it that:
1) engaging parties believe in the veracity of their argument and are genuinely keen to spread their view, which they already deem as unshakeable truth?
2) engaging parties seek affirmation in their views by attempting to have other people agree with their views, or to engage in argument/debate with responding parties with the goal of getting the responding parties to concede that the argument of the engaging party is indeed true?
3) engaging parties seek primarily to benefit themselves by (a) viewing arguments/debates as an opportunity to construct their views into a presentable, organised and coherent structure and to test one's existing views by subjecting them to robust scrutiny and criticism; and (b) viewing arguments/debates as an opportunity to absorb new views espoused by responding parties which may be more plausible to them so that engaging parties may add onto their present views, having the flexibility to alter them if such alternative views have greater plausibility to the engaging party?
The basic natures of agendas (1) and (2) demand that the ultimate goal of the argument is to seek the concession of the 'audience', or the other responding, debating/arguing parties. Unfortunately the views of most of such responding parties are likely to be so entrenched that this disagreement is unlikely.
More specifically, for example, for agenda (1) the engaging party will purport a supposed truth, and the responding party will often be denying that truth (assuming a disagreement arises). The engaging party fails to meet his agenda and gets frustrated.
For agenda (2), the engaging party purports his view, hoping the responding party endorses it. If there is disagreement, the engaging party proceeds to force the responding party to concede to the veracity of its argument. If the responding party refuses to budge, engaging party is upset, discouraged and may perhaps turn offensive. It all goes downhill from there. If the responding party does indeed concede, the victory may be but an empty one. (See final paragraph for an elaboration on this point.)
Arguments can only proceed on a fruitful basis if there is the basic agreement that that both engaging and responding parties are arguing with the agreed premise of agenda (3)- that is, parties are all here to learn. Their respective aims are not to 'convert' the other party to their views, but to test and refine their own views. Should any views put out by the other party appear to them more plausible than any other views they hold, they can adopt those new views for their own benefit. The crux is seeing discussion and even a potential disagreement as an opportunity to build upon their current views. The aim is not to force a general across-the-board agreement. There must already be an initial general acceptance that the outcome of the discussion may even be a total polarity of views. Parties can nevertheless see the discussion and disagreement as a 'marketplace'/'buffet' where the 'wares'/'dishes' in the form of ideas are being offered for free - parties can simply partake from what they find useful from the information that is thrown out in the course of the discussion. With this basic agreement in mind, discussion can then be more constructive and fruitful.
Other basic rules may include:
(i) When one party disagrees with another, one must give a satisfactory explanation. Reasons such as "your view is silly/irrational/unprogressive/stupid" are insufficiently explanatory. Respect for the other party should be shown by caring to elaborate should one wish to criticise.
(ii) Number your arguments. Often discussions are most unsatisfactory when a party chooses to be selective by engaging in only some topics (in which the party presumably fancies its chances of 'winning'). Numbering forces engagement and response on the points a party deems important. As basic protocol for discussion, the responding party should address all the numbered points. This will prevent the responding party from 'running away' from making certain responses to certain arguments.
(iii) Be honest. When a party thinks the views offered by another party are sensible and plausible, they should concede as such. Concession should not be seen as a failure but a step towards a more plausible solution.
(iv) As an extension to the above, do not let ego get into the way of the discussion. If a new view does indeed appear to one to be more plausible, why insist that one's older, originally purported view is correct just for the sake of 'winning the argument'? The goal is to add plausibility.
(v) Never engage in personal attacks. Always attack only the argument. "You're just being silly/immature" comes to mind as a negative example.
It is tempting to say that a view is more plausible when more people concede to its veracity. However, there is no direct relationship between the number of people subscribing to a view, and the veracity of that view. Many years ago it was blasphemy to suggest that the Earth was round and not flat. The best we can do is to honestly examine our view with a most critical eye and ask ourselves: with every subsequent amendment and refinement we make, is the view we hold becoming more logically plausible, to the best of our logical and rational limitations?
posted by darren at
4:37 pm
|
0 comments
