With partisan battles raging in Washington, online and around the world, it seems like society has fallen into one long, hopeless shouting match. Not so, say 菠萝视频 philosophy professors and , authors of Why We Argue (And How We Should): A Guide to Political Disagreement (2014, Routledge). They also host a new podcast called Philosophy15, which offers bite-sized discussions of philoso颅phic issues.
鈥淎rgument remains the main resource we have for seeking the truth, assessing our ideas, challenging our perspectives and improving our beliefs,鈥� says Talisse, the W. Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy and chair of the department. 鈥淒espite the risks of hostility, we must argue with each other. The challenge is to argue well.鈥�
Here are some rules of thumb:
1. AVOID THE 鈥淪IMPLE TRUTH鈥� TRAP.
Whether you disagree about politics, religion, or just which city makes the best pizza, it鈥檚 easy to think that someone has just missed a very simple truth, says Aikin, MA鈥�03, PhD鈥�06, assistant professor of philosophy. 鈥淭he 鈥榮imple truth鈥� thesis says that obvious pieces of common sense can be missed only if one is deeply corrupted in some way鈥攂y one鈥檚 education, ideology or upbringing. But if you start with the assumption that the other person is rational, the simple truth thesis can鈥檛 be right.鈥�
2. DON鈥橳 STEREOTYPE.
Opposite sides in deep disagreements tend to have not only an entrenched view of what鈥檚 right or wrong, but they also have built-in perceptions about the people who hold those views. 鈥淓very conservative has a stereotype of, say, the liberal professor or the women鈥檚 studies major; and every liberal has a stereotype of, say, those who prefer market solutions to labor problems or those who endorse the death penalty,鈥� Talisse says. But those stereotypes are products of the way one side has represented the other side in debates, he says, adding that these characterizations often leave out important details that may make an argument better than you鈥檇 anticipated.
3. MAKE YOUR PREMISE CLEAR.
鈥淎rguments require that we be clear about what we are reasoning from and what we are reasoning to,鈥� Talisse says. When people themselves aren鈥檛 clear about their starting premise, the argument itself won鈥檛 be clear. 鈥淭his defeats the point of arguing.鈥�
4. CONCEDE A GOOD POINT.
鈥淚f your interlocutor has a good point, concede it. Revise your view accordingly,鈥� Aikin admonishes. 鈥淭he whole point of the discussion is to see what can pass the test of critical reasoning, and if your view doesn鈥檛 pass the test, get rid of the troublesome parts.鈥�
5. BE PATIENT.
Recognize that deep disagreements likely won鈥檛 be resolved in just a short conversation, or even a single exchange. It takes a long time to hash out big disagreements, Talisse says: 鈥淭his is because, first, it is hard to change one鈥檚 mind, and second, because a significant disagreement arises often because there are many contributing factors. They all need to be addressed before there can be adequate resolution.鈥�
TEXT BY JIM PATTERSON, MLAS鈥�15
ILLUSTRATION BY GARY WATERS