Good Arguments (Autumn Reading Group, session #3)

This is the final book summary of Seo’s Good Arguments (post #1 and post #2), covering chapters 7, 8, 9 and the conclusion, for the Philosophy Meetup book discussion this weekend. 

Chapter 7 Education

Seo offers the following debating formula:  

Information < skills, skills < motivation  

Skills include research, teamwork, logical thinking, etc. Debate activity gives students a reason to care about learning.  To be heard, and hold one’s own in an argument.  It is an equalizing activity.

Seo discusses James Farmer’s involvement in debating.  This short video describes Farmer’s involvement in the civil rights movement:

Seo notes that those who engage in repeated debates will experience more losses than wins.  Thus it is an activity that teaches us humility.  Debate can make us realize that while our adversaries might be defeated, they will never be vanquished.  They return with better arguments and new information. Debate teaches us these truths.  Struggle and conflict are not only part of debate, they are life. Seo contends that wisdom involves responding to this reality with grace.

Reflect on your experience in school.  Do you have good role models for debate?  Teachers that exemplified intellectual humility and “perspective taking” when considering contentious subjects?  Conversely, did you have teachers that exemplified the epistemic vices of being close minded, arrogant and blindly ideological in their outlook?  Did you have the opportunity to observe and participate in debate at school?

 

Chapter 8 Relationships

Seo starts this chapter by noting the frequency in which arguments amongst intimates occur (e.g. 18 arguments/month about dishwashing).  The most persistent disputes are often with our closest inmates and over trivial matters.  He notes the the typical advice to resolve disputes- like finding commonality or breaking the disagreement down into smaller parts- seems harder to apply in intimate relationships.

With personal disagreements misunderstandings are very common, perhaps arising from the certainty that comes with greater knowledge of other person.  Unimportant issues often take on exaggerated importance.  We often expect loved ones to agree with us.  And we read a lot into these disputes, about our importance to the other person.  As soon as we expand the scope of these disagreements we risk making it more intractable.  Sometimes in these disputes a person is testing if the other person still cares about us (an example of misaligned motivations in disputes).

Dirty dish disputes are Seo’s archetype example of personal disputes.  And pride plays a significant role in disputes with our intimates. 

The following “side switch” exercises are addressed, as a way to resolve such disputes:

Stress test:  review your arguments from the perspective of your opponent. Think of the  strongest objections to your claims.

Lost ballot:  imagine you have won the debate from the opposing side, write out the reasons why you won and the mistakes of the opposition.

When we try to see things from another point of view, we see the “subjective reasonableness” of other beliefs, and this may help us realize that some of our beliefs are erroneous.   

Seo quotes A. Craig Baird (1955) “Sound conviction arose from mature reflection.  And it was the role of debate to facilitate the maturing of such reflection and conviction”.

Think of the debates and disputes you have in your own intimate relationships.  Do you have any advice on what to do, or what not to do, in such circumstances?  Has pride taken a toll on your personal life?    

Chapter 9 Technology:  How to Debate in the Future

This chapter has an interesting discussion of IBM’s Project Debater.  This video shows the debate in question.

We can discuss how we think AI might impact the future of debate.  But even with technological advances like social media (Twitter, FB, etc.) we can reflect on how information and debate has been shaped by these technological advances.  For example, fuelling group polarization and echo chambers, sound bites, misinformation, etc.

Conclusion

Seo notes a friend’s suggestion as was finishing a draft of the book: to consider the question “How does debate scale?”

Seo contends that public institutions should make more space for debate- such as the   rules for Parliamentary procedures, or create new institutions (e.g. Citizen’s Assemblies).  The state should provide education to enable citizens to participate in such forums.  Debate requires a level playing field.  But in the real world this is not the case.  So we need to work on creating more equitable institutions and ensure they have integrity.

How does debate scale?  Seo’s eventual answer to this question is “It doesn’t”.  He argues that what power debate has resides in the magic of an encounter, one-on-one, on its own terms.  One good conversation at a time.  Good arguments create new ideas and strengthen relationships.  It is a basic commitment is to dialogue not monologue. 

He concludes by noting the lessons debate taught him.  It gave him a voice when he had none.  Debate taught him to argue for his interests, respond to opponents, use words, lose with grace and pick his battles. 

I really enjoyed reading this book and look forward to our final discussion of it on Sunday. 

Cheers,

Colin