My attitude regarding “debate” has varied considerably. Around this time last year, I stocked my hard drive full of theology debates featuring Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, Christopher Hitchens, and a few more of my professional Heroes. The debates ranged from the theological to the paranormal, but they always featured two personalities: the proposition and the opposition.
Of course, debates like this are extremely interesting to listen to. Its fun to pump your fists in the air when your speaker throws a hard jab in the ring, and its even more fun to jaw-drop when the opponent makes an absurd point, or dodges a question. When you’re itching for a philosophical fight, listening to a debate can be one of the most enjoyable activities imaginable.
But do these debates really amount to any good? Headed off to my freshman year in college, my mind dramatically changed on this issue. In a typical auditorium, its safe to say that one large part of the audience is in support of one speaker, and the other is following the opposition. There may only be a handful of individuals who truly have not made up their mind on the issue at hand. Of course, this phenomenon is adequately supported above—I went in to all of these debates fully supporting Dawkins, Shermer, or Hitchens. Very rarely would I (as an audience member) concede to a good point from the opposition. Listening was more a game of “lets see how badly Dawkins embarrasses the other guy!” Its not too much to assume that the other side feels much the same way. Nobody’s mind is going to change in that auditorium, chances are. If anything, a debate polarizes the issue more.
One other issue arises from this kind of debate: false balance. Much in the same way that a newspaper will try to be “unbiased” by showing “both sides” of an issue, a formal debate legitimizes both sides, even if one is absolutely unfounded. For example, there are many debates exploring the contention between Evolution and Creationism. Creationism is a medieval mythology that is completely unsupported by ANY evidence. The multiple lines of empirical data supporting the 13 Billion year age of the universe and the indisputable evidence for Evolution and Natural Selection makes this argument completely one-sided. Every modern debate on this issue accomplishes the same thing: it legitimizes Biblical Creationism as an alternative theory to Science.
Creationism isn’t even a theory, its a MYTH, and a fairly bland one at that. The two halves of the myth don’t even make internal sense, and the idea that Humans are this guardian species who have inherited the earth is the most profound projection of our own Egoism in literature.
Clearly there are dangers in establishing a debate with an opposing viewpoint.
There’s another aspect to this idea I wanted to develop. Last week there was a loud-mouthed girl in my dorm hallway. She was a little drunk, and was obviously in the mood for an argument. When asked why she enjoyed arguing so much, she replied, “Well when somebody argues with me, they are wrong, and its my job to convince them otherwise; to show them that I am right.”
If this is the exact reason you don’t like arguments, I believe its safe to say that you are not alone. This definition of an argument is an exact, small-scale replica of the debate described above. Neither arguer is willing to change their view. They each fully believe they are right, and the entire point of the argument is to change the other person’s mind.
In that case, TO HELL WITH ARGUING! Everyone should search out their own truth…never to be challenged by anyone else…a complete, philosophical loop. Every person’s ideas should be respected, because every person has their own truth. We will live in harmony! Each man, woman, and child will be able to live at peace with themselves because they will never be told, “you are wrong.” …a beautiful state of cognitive stagnation and temporal bliss.
Okay, that obviously doesn’t work either. There has to be some middle ground…
This is where we find Socratic Debate. Socratic Debate works toward one goal: finding the big “T”: Truth. Call it what you will…truth, reality, philosophy…whatever it is, its the big one. We all just want to come a little closer to the truth. Hell, why do religions exist? Why do we have science? Why are some of the first artifacts discovered the figures of a Goddess? The answer is that people need to ask questions like “why?” and “how?” We yearn for the truth, no matter how you define it.
Socratic debate says, debate is a process. We have two viewpoints, a Thesis and an Antithesis. These two perspectives have their accuracies and inaccuracies, but hopefully by the end of the argument there will be a new understanding: a Synthesis of the two. The debate ends, and there is no loser. Both parties become closer to the truth. This is how science works, and this is how our species has developed into the thriving society we now form.
No comments:
Post a Comment