When we try to apply these concepts to public discussion, we must include the idea of emotional arguments which may test some of these guidelines because opinions are not always built on evidence. People often believe what they believe based on their worldview which is not likely available for modification with any reasonable effort or investment of time.
Yet they are our neighbors and their opinions are as important as are our own. They influence their circle of friends and they vote, and when their opinion is opposed to ours, if it comes to an up or down vote, they may win or we may win, but some people will leave unhappy.
Alternatively we can search for common ground that both sides accept. If political action is based on accepted foundations, progress, defined as needed change, can happen with wide support.
Let's go through the concepts for scientific discussion and see how they work for public discussions and what kind of changes might make sense when dealing with your neighbors.
- The Falliability Principle
When alternative positions on any disputed issue are under review, each participant in the discussion should acknowledge that possibly none of the positions presented is deserving of acceptance and that, at best, only one of them is true or the most defensible position. Therefore, it is possible that thorough examination of the issue will reveal that one’s own initial position is a false or indefensible one.
This principle can also be thought of as "nobody knows everything" and "everybody can learn something" from others. At the very least, we can learn what others think, even if we disagree. It seems like a good tone-setting thought that should help lay the ground work for a public discussion. - The Truth-Seeking Principle
Each participant should be committed to the task of earnestly searching for the truth or at least the most defensible position on the issue at stake. Therefore, one should be willing to examine alternative positions seriously, look for insights in the positions of others, and allow other participants to present arguments for or raise objections to any position held with regard to any disputed issue.
This principle follows and extends the Infallibility Principle in that, given that we don't know everything, we should strive to learn the truth as a guide for what we do believe. And since we are not infallible, we should be open to what other people know or believe in the quest for the truth. - The Clarity Principle
The formulations of all positions, defenses, and attacks should be free of any kind of linguistic confusion and clearly separated from other positions and issues.
If there is a facilitator for the discussion, this should be one of their most important jobs. If a point can be restated cleanly before others react to its extraneous material and innuendo, the focus can remain on the issue at hand without being side tracked.
If there is no facilitator, then it is left to the others participating in the discussion to help the originator of the point to clean up his language to clarify the central intent of the claim. - The Burden of Proof Principle
The burden of proof for any position usually rests on the participant who sets forth the position. If and when an opponent asks, the proponent should provide an argument for that position.
This is the normal expectation that the person making a claim in a discussion should be able to identify the justification for the claim, even if it is just based on a personal belief. This helps the others in the discussion to understand how persuaded they should feel by this particular claim. - The Principle of Charity
If a participant’s argument is reformulated by an opponent, it should be expressed in the strongest possible version that is consistent with the original intention of the arguer. If there is any question about that intention or about implicit parts of the argument, the arguer should be given the benefit of any doubt in the reformulation.
The purpose of reforming an opponents argument should only be the Clarity Principle. Any other result is not in keeping with the humble pursuit of the truth. - The Relevance Principle
One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to set forth only reasons that are directly related to the merit of the position at issue.
This is closely related to the Clarity Principle, except it is focused on the supporting arguments rather than the original claim. Not only should a claim be clearly stated, but the arguments for or against that claim, should be clearly for or clearly against that precise claim. - The Acceptability Principle
One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to use reasons that are mutually acceptable to the participants and that meet standard criteria of acceptability.
This principle is one of feedback. Normally we think of arguments and counterarguments as providing give and take in the process of finding the truth. But this principle allows additional discussion on the arguments themselves. Are they good arguments or are they tainted in some way to lessen or discredit their intent? If a claim can be justified with acceptable arguments, it should. If not, that should be noted. - The Sufficiency Principle
One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide reasons that are sufficient in number, kind, and weight to support the acceptance of the conclusion.
In other words, are the arguments sufficient to support the claim? If not, what can be supported and is that a claim worth discussing? - The Rebuttal Principle
One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide an effective rebuttal to all serious challenges to the argument or the position it supports and to the strongest argument on the other side of the issue.
This is the essence of a back and forth search toward the truth. In a public discussion, it is likely that pieces of the arguments for or against a claim will come from different people. Indeed, acceptable modifications of the claim itself may arise from out of the discussion and the clear wording of the claim and its arguments for and against its support should be restated to evaluate if it has been effectively rebutted. - The Resolution Principle
An issue should be considered resolved if the proponent for one of the alternative positions successfully defends that position by presenting an argument that uses relevant and acceptable premises that together provide sufficient grounds to support the conclusion and provides an effective rebuttal to all serious challenges to the argument or position at issue. Unless one can demonstrate that these conditions have not been met, one should accept the conclusion of the successful argument and consider the issue, for all practical purposes, to be settled. In the absence of a successful argument for any of the alternative positions, one is obligated to accept the position that is supported by the best of the good arguments presented.
This is a principle that once invoked in a public discussion, will probably result in some resistance from those whose beliefs are somehow trampled by the apparent resolution. There may not be acceptable arguments to support their positions, but they prefer to cling to them regardless.
If these concerns can be met with an acceptable statement limiting the applicability of the resolution from the discussion so that it does not cross whatever sensibilities remain, that may help gain wider support. Otherwise, a clear minority statement of opinion could, at least, let those adherents know that their point of view was heard. - The Suspension of Judgment Principle
If no position comes close to being successfully defended, or if two or more positions seem to be defended with equal strength, one should, in most cases, suspend judgment about the issue. If practical considerations seem to require an immediate decision, one should weigh the relative risks of gain or loss connected with the consequences of suspending judgment and decide the issue on those grounds.
This is where we have to admit, particularly in public discussions, that there may be equally well supported, yet different points of view. This is likely a topic that may ebb and flow along with the political winds unless we can identify areas of common ground. If we can find such common ground, it would normally be useful to review that as a separate claim along with the various acceptable statements of support from the different points of view. This "sub-claim" could then form the basis for well supported political action. - The Reconsideration Principle
If a successful or at least good argument for a position is subsequently found by any participant to be flawed in a way that raises new doubts about the merit of that position, one is obligated to reopen the issue for further consideration and resolution.
If this discovery comes during a public discussion, it opens up the give and take of the flow of arguments for and against the claim. However if it occurs after actions have been initiated based on a previous resolution, that resolution must be reopened, no matter how difficult, to see if the proposed acts are still supportable. If the acts have been completed, perhaps the reopening of consideration may help explain if the results were not as originally hoped. - Fleck’s Addendum
“Do not feel as though you MUST ALWAYS HAVE THE LAST WORD OVER YOUR OPPONENT”
Like most actual debate tactics in the public arena, "Always Having the Last Word" violates these first 12 principles. That reality points to the fact that if we are seriously trying to come to a point of political action, these consensus building exercises are better left to situations where an able facilitator is in control. Otherwise the human tendency to crush your opponent becomes ugly.
The real purpose of a directed discussion is not just to find the truth, but the main purpose is to find the possible.
Posts
1 comment:
Neat ideas
Post a Comment