Gedachten
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
On Truth and Debate
I believe that every moral question, whether initiated by the lowest of accidents or cases or initiated by great wars and philosophies, is actually but a representation in the current place and time of the greater moral issue. You might call this, referring to Platonic vision, the "ideal moral issue". And because of that, every time people come together and by reason, morals and wit debate these representations of moral issues, they simultaneously debate the ideal moral issue. The consequence of this is that there is but one requirement for a group of reasonable, moral and wise people, no matter the background, social position or other status of the people in the group, to reach the truth, and that is following the "scientific methods" of real debate. As long as that requirement is met, I think even we here on internet forums en blogspots can reach a measure of eternal truth. However, to do that we still do need to have our debate be a real, valid debate, not just a shouting match or popularity contest for opinions. Luckily, there are certain rules we can follow to make debate "real", and so by using the innate methods of real debate catch a glimpse, perhaps, now and then, of the 'ideal truth', or 'eternal truth'.
The point is that a real debate contains innately "scientific methods" for searching for eternal truth. But to be real, debate needs to use those methods, which are simply a way to use logic, ratio and criticism to remove barriers that prevent us from reaching that eternal truth.
The Socratic method, the critical dialogue, is one essential part of real debate. It ensures that every statement presented by any of the parties in the debate as fact, will be reviewed by the other parties with regard to its veracity and will be, no matter the 'social logic' of the statement or the measure to which it seems obvious, criticized by them. This removes the first barrier to reaching eternal truth in debate: the 'false positives', i.e. assuming something to be true without adequate proof or argument.
The second barrier is the social fear. This means that cerain statements will not be criticized, because they are socially accepted and so criticism would make the critic socially vulnerable, as seen in the above paragraph. But it also means the social fear of making positive statements, of saying things you feel are true or even just debatable, but not being socially allowed to say them because they are a taboo for some (rational or emotional) reason.
The essential part that prevents this is the "advocacy for the devil". In fact, this is just the positive version of the Socratic method: every real debate requires at least one party to defend a particular side to the best of his ability, when at least one other party has chosen the opposite side. Even if all parties disagree with a certain thing (which should, as we will see next, also be very rare in real debate), one of the parties should defend that thing. This works, one might say, as a 'filter' for debate. Something may very deservedly be disagreeable to all parties involved, but it is necessary for reaching the eternal truth that it becomes clear exactly what it is in that something that is so disagreeable to all. By having one party defend it to the best of his ability, the parts of that something that are still defendable will remain, but the part that is not defendable will be succesfully attacked. That way, everyone involved will clearly see what the core of the 'evil' in the disputed thing is, and that in turn will provide a source for new debate, or if not, an axiom of truth.
It is important to note in this context that refraining from fully criticizing someone on a certain weak point (or something perceived as a weak point by the critic) because of politeness is also to be regarded as social fear. After all, it is also only socially, not rationally, better not to correct someone's wrongs when that would lead to loss of honor for that someone.
The third barrier is uniformity. While this is often related to the issue of social fear, it is not the same. Uniformity occurs not when there is a similarity to all the arguments used and the positions taken, as with social fear, but when the points of departure, so to speak, are the same. When that occurs, there is a barrier to reaching truth: because there are many roads that lead to Rome, and if everyone departs from the same place, we may never find which one is the right road. To put it more clearly: if everyone starts from the same ethical and cultural side, there is automatically an assumption that is untested (which is against the Socratic method) and there is the chance, ever present, of everyone in the debate collectively erring. After all, how can we know that agreement among debaters means that some truth has been ascertained, when all the debaters are so alike that it might as well mean they have just found some common ground that everyone feels good about, but which may not be as defendable as some other common ground of some different group of people? That common ground is reached of itself means nothing: it is the comparison of ideas and positions that assures correct evalutation, not everyone following the same course. Because of that, variety is essential to maintain competition within the debate, which in turn ensures the search for truth is not easily led astray.
The penultimate method is the mathematics of logic. This is hard to explain precisely, but it is innately posessed by educated people. All the logical structures, like when A=B, B=A, fall under this category. It sounds rather hard not to apply this, but that is deceptive. Firstly it requires a certain level of education, especially education that involves and encourages critical thought; which unfortunately many in this world do not and will not receive at this point. (For example, the Arab world is infamous for providing reasonable factual education, but being abysmal at teaching critical thought. That is one of the causes for the popularity of fundamentalism in the region).
Secondly, even among people skilled at critical thought, like almost everyone in the First World, it is easy to be fooled by things that sound logical but really aren't. Read any random few op/ed pieces in the respectable newspaper of your region, and you will find more fallacies than arguments in most cases. That is not, though, a reason to consider current media low of quality. Rather, it is simply harder to make fully valid arguments than it may seem, as many kinds of reasoning that easily occur to us are unfortunately not valid. However, this can be remedied by having all parties involved take a basic syllogism course, or having the rules of syllogism readily at hand.
The last method is the most simple one of them all, but nevertheless equally crucial as the others. It is information. Now gramatically information cannot be a method, but within debate, especially internet debate (or similar debates that are not face-to-face), it does function as one. All that is needed is to have as much information as is needed readily at hand, and, additionally, to have much, much more available, because information itself can spur ideas and so debate. The function of information within debate, however, is that it can function as a way to change the environment in which the debate takes place, one might say.
Imagine debate as a match of "lasergame". In lasergame, contestants wear special suits and are armed with laser guns, and are then released into some special area (usually an indoor maze of some kind), where they try to 'shoot' others as much as possible. When they hit, they win points, but if they miss, they lose points.
The people lasergaming are, of course, the parties in the debate. The lasers they shoot at each other are the arguments each uses, where the strength and validity of each argument, as judged by the other contestants via its de facto effect, determines whether or not it was a hit. Now information is the background of the debate: the indoor maze. When you bring information, not arguments, to the debate, you effectively change the surroundings of both your and your opponent's position. If the information supports your side, your opponent is figuratively pushed into a corner, where it is easier to hit him with your arguments. Some information may be neutral, changing the surroundings in general but not particularly benefiting any party. It may however, spur new arguments (shooting from new positions, or while moving, in the metaphor). This is the "method" of information within debate.
When all these methods are used, real debate occurs. Real debate removes the barriers that withhold from us the possibility of ascertaining truth, and because of that, it is the best form of debate. When reasonable and intelligent parties hold a real debate, it will not matter what the issue is and it will not matter what the status is of any of the parties involved: the path to eternal truth is cleared, and however far away it still may be, it is only then that it is at least reachable.
