For some time now I have been ruminating on some pet peeves about what is commonly accepted as debate in modern America. This is especially noticeable in emails and posts and responses to columns. It apparently has been recognized by others. Lately there are columns popping up that focus on "liberal condescension" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123492175917805451.htmlhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB123492175917805451.html a condition which is probably angling to be added to the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for psychiatry) that is currently being revised to update definitions of mental illness. (For more on DSM go to http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-02-10-dsm10_ST_N.htm ).
My concern is not limited to any particular side of a debate. I called a very conservative blogger on an issue in his column just the other day that constituted a misrepresentation of the basic facts in his argument. He got completely sidetracked from that however with the personal issue that was raised in the column which was not my focus at all. Consequently, he never acknowledged the real point.
I used to teach a course called "Critical Thinking." The upshot of the class was to raise people's awareness of the many ways that argument can actually be erroneous and lead one to a completely unsupportable conclusion that they will nevertheless defend with dedication. It was interesting to take newspaper editorials into class and use them as examples. People who emotionally identified with an issue had a very difficult time stepping back and appreciating the cracks in the foundation of the case being made.
A great example I could have used in class appeared this very morning on the Arizona Republic editorial page, wherein the writer-- exorcised over the silliness of people snidely remarking that the unprecedented snow in the east this winter of 2010 must be the effect of "global warming" --argues that obviously this too is the result of human induced climate change and cites to earthquakes as another of those symptoms. Clearly in his zeal he got a bit carried away. I am extremely confident that there is not a single scientist who has ever suggested earthquakes are in any way connected to human activity. But he stated it with such conviction that he appears to be convinced that is the case. It would have been interesting to see if anyone in class would have fallen in line with this guy notwithstanding the pretty blatant absurdity of the human connection to earthquakes.
The class pointed out several ways one commits fallacy in reasoning. I have recently been noticing one major error that is creeping more and more often into contemporary rhetoric --the ad hominem attack. This term defines when, rather than arguing the merits of the topic, one resorts to calling into question the person on the opposing side. The tactic takes many forms: dismissal of all those who disagree as somehow intellectually inferior, silly or jaded; constant repetition of the person's name which keeps the focus on the arguer and distracts from the argument; misconstruing one's intention to impact his credibility; generalizing and assuming facts not in evidence by labeling an opponent as a member of a group whose agenda may not even relate to the subject matter of the argument. When you think about it personal attack is really what the "liberal condescension" concern is about.
There are about 17 other types of fallacious reasoning that impact our ability to intelligently discuss and ultimately resolve problems. They include the perennial problems of changing the subject, inapt analogies, iffy statistical analysis, hasty judgments, overlooking evidence, slippery slope, just not having all the data and so forth. But one of the easiest to employ yet toughest to deal with is the personal attack.
Its overuse threatens to suppress solutions, which are desperately needed in these uncertain times. It is ubiquitous. Just about everywhere you look it pops up. Only yesterday (02/11/10) I read a response to a criticism of a position on a utility regulation that cited the opponents name in almost every sentence (I am not exaggerating). The effect was that the gist of the guy's argument was completely blurred by this distraction of constantly bringing the personage of the fellow whose argument he purported to criticize. I honestly have no recollection of the substance of his repartee. How could this move the issue forward?
It takes a great deal of work to deal with constantly having to point out the errors of logic in these debates. Not only is it time consuming, it is a total distraction from the issue, actually creating an impediment to ever truly fleshing it out. This is endemic in a two party system and makes political solutions nearly impossible to attain. Much like a court case, the two sides assume an adversarial stance right out of the chute. That sets the tone and overrides everything else about the engagement, including the substance of the discussion. And much like court cases, these debates drag on for years and in the end proactive solutions are never attained. Instead reactive responses to what has become a crisis during the time of the pointless arguments drives the next move and everyone suffers. A perfect case in point is the economic crisis that is now taken on the pall of a doomsday scenario: bad scene, blame game, bailout, skyrocketing deficit. No calm and intellectual debate to come up with a solution as no one had time. But everyone has time to slam the other side.
I have two very intelligent and driven friends who are of the liberal persuasion. They are both very educated and skilled lawyers. One of them is almost vehement in his use of the ad hominem error, even after having been called on it and taken note of it. The result is that it becomes impossible to entertain his arguments and they are, therefore, dismissed. The other fellow, however, has never resorted to that tactic and with him it is a pleasure to engage.
This is neither liberal nor conservative, it is simply expensive and does nothing more than delay the inevitable. Amazing, isn't it, how a simply thing like a personal attack can derail an entire system?
So what to do? I suggest that you watch yourself. If you find that you are focusing on the person rather than the issue, take a step back and regroup. If you find your opponent doing so, kindly point out the problem of heading that direction and remap the conversation. If that doesn't work, find a new debate partner. But most importantly, in your research keep these concepts in mind so that you are more able to sort out the wheat from the chaff enabling you to come to well reasoned conclusions. If everyone just did that what a different world this would be; I could go back to cooking and not be possessed by the need to write these blog rants.
No comments:
Post a Comment