Arguments are to be avoided, they are always vulgar and often convincing. – Oscar Wilde5
Witty, huh?
It is fun to make such extreme claims, but now we need to ask whether they are correct or accurate. Of course not. They are snarky exaggerations. The truth is that, although we cannot always reason with everyone, that limitation does not show that arguments and reasoning are never useful.
Admittedly, arguing (especially online) can be frustrating. Opponents often do not listen at all. Still, they do listen sometimes. I used to think that no mammals lay eggs. Then I read on Wikipedia that monotremes are mammals that lay eggs. I could have resisted, but I didn’t. I reasoned my way to the conclusion that some mammals lay eggs, because I wanted to get it right.
I did not care much about monotremes, but some arguments can change our lives in major ways and lead us to act contrary to basic desires. Once I taught a course on applied ethics that discussed animal rights and vegetarianism. After the course, one student thanked me by saying, “Your course has made my whole family happier.” His parents were both vegetarians, but he had not been a vegetarian himself. During the course, he had come to appreciate the arguments for vegetarianism, so he understood his parents better. Moreover, he decided to become a vegetarian. “Why?” I asked. He claimed that the arguments on that side seemed stronger to him. Of course, he could have been deluded. It is possible that the arguments really had no effect. Perhaps he really wanted to get along better with his family. It’s possible, but he reported that he already had gotten along with them very well. Maybe some horrific picture of animals suffering in a factory farm is what really turned him around. And yet I did not show any horrific pictures of animals suffering in factory farms, and he did not report seeing such pictures himself (and why would he lie or forget?). In this case, then, the arguments did at least some of the work. He became a vegetarian because the arguments gave him reasons to become vegetarian.
Many other examples of radical conversion in the light of evidence are well documented. Megan Phelps-Roper reports that she gave up her allegiance to Westboro Baptist Church partly because
My friends on Twitter took the time to understand Westboro’s doctrines, and in doing so, they were able to find inconsistencies I’d missed my entire life. Why did we advocate the death penalty for gays when Jesus said, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?” How could we claim to love our neighbor while at the same time praying for God to destroy them? The truth is that the care shown to me by these strangers on the internet was itself a contradiction. It was growing evidence that people on the other side were not the demons I’d been led to believe.6
Of course, her emotions toward her Twitter friends as well as her compassion for her neighbors played a large role in her conversion. But that does not mean that reason played no role. Her emotion made her listen to her Twitter friends, but she reports that the content of what they said also made a difference: “they were able to find inconsistencies.” She was convinced by “growing evidence.”
Admittedly, other members of Westboro Church did not change their beliefs. Maybe they did not listen. This shows that arguments are not always enough by themselves to ensure a certain belief or action. But nobody should expect that much. A match does not light every time you strike it. Sometimes the match or the matchbook is wet. Sometimes there is not enough friction where you strike it. Sometimes there is not enough oxygen. Moreover, sometimes the match lights without striking, such as when you light one match with another match. Thus, a cause does not have to be strictly necessary or sufficient for the effect in all circumstances. Nonetheless, when the struck match does light, striking the match is what causes it to light. Analogously, giving someone an argument for a conclusion can cause the audience to believe that conclusion.
Then why do cynics deny that arguments affect beliefs? This simplistic view is appealing because everyone has had the frustrating experience of giving a good argument that convinces nobody. But what does that show? Perhaps only that no one listened or understood. Or only that the argument was not as good as it seemed. Or even just that the audience needed time to mull it over.
Cynicism results from unrealistic expectations. If we expect an argument to be a knock-down proof that convinces everyone immediately on first hearing, then we are bound to be disappointed. Almost no arguments work like that. If we trim our expectations to make them more realistic, and if we are patient enough to wait for effects that take a while instead of demanding immediate capitulation, then we will find that reasons and arguments can have some influence. Sometimes some arguments do change some people’s beliefs and actions slowly and partially. That weak claim might disappoint cynics who demand more, but it also might be enough to give us hope for progress.
WHAT DO WE GET OUT OF ARGUING?
My overall goal here is to show how fascinating and important arguments are and to undermine common misunderstandings about reasons and arguments. Most people see arguments as ways to persuade other people or to beat them in some kind of verbal fight, debate, or competition. That view is not all wrong, but it is limited and incomplete. Some people do present arguments as displays of prowess or power, but arguments can also play more constructive roles in social interactions.
Learning
Imagine that I argue with you about negotiations regarding sanctions against North Korea. I argue that China should be kept out of the negotiations. You argue that China should be allowed into the negotiations, because China will make the sanctions more effective. You refute my arguments and convince me that China should be brought in. If arguments are like fights or competitions, then you won. You convinced me. I did not convince you.
This view is backward. You did not win much, if anything. After all, you ended up with the same view that you started with. You might not have learned anything because you refuted all of my arguments against your position. You might not even understand me or my initial position any better. Thus, you gained little or nothing from our interaction, except perhaps some good feeling about winning a competition or showing me the error of my ways. That is why I doubt that you won.
In contrast, I gained a lot. I improved my view. I gained new evidence and new arguments. I understood the situation and my new position better than I did before our arguments. Thus, if what I wanted was truth, reason, and understanding, then I got what I wanted. That makes me the real winner. Instead of resenting the person who refuted my arguments, I should thank that individual for teaching me. But to see why, we need to realize that arguments are not like fights, debates, or competitions.
Respect
Another positive benefit of providing an argument or of asking for an argument is that doing so expresses respect for one’s audience. When you are walking your dog on a leash, and the dog turns left when you want to turn right, what do you do? You pull on the leash. What do you not do? You do not say, “Fido, listen to reason.”
Contrast walking your dog with walking with your partner. Your plan is to go for a pleasant evening stroll around the block in a city that you are visiting for the first time. When you get to an intersection, your partner turns left when you want to turn right. What do you do? You had better not just pull your partner to the right. Instead, you would, I hope, use reason. You might say something like, “I think our hotel is in this direction.” If your partner disagrees, you might argue, “Didn’t we turn right, then right again, and then right again? If I remember that much correctly, then now we need to turn right in order to get back. Don’t you agree?” You present reasons for turning right instead of just forcing your partner to turn right. The goal of giving reasons is not simply to get them to turn in the way that you want. The purpose is also to show them that you appreciate that they can understand and respond to those reasons, unlike a dog. It also shows that you recognize that you might be wrong and they might be right. You give them a chance to respond by showing that you are wrong or that something is wrong with your argument. This kind of exchang
e of reasons happens between equals who respect each other and admit their own fallibility. One benefit of providing an argument is to signal that you see your relationship to the other person in this light.
The signal is sent not only when we give an argument but also when we ask for an argument. It can get very annoying when a child asks “Why?” after everything you say. Still, it can also be annoying when people do not ask why you disagree with them. You say, “Let’s turn right.” Your partner responds, “No. Let’s turn left.” That’s it. Nothing more. That would annoy me. Why? Partly because we want other people to recognize that they owe us a reason, but also partly because we want them to be interested in our reasons. To ask “Why do you want to turn right?” is to show a recognition that I am the kind of creature who can give a reason. It is a sign of respect.
Humility
In addition to showing respect, another benefit of reasons and arguments is that they can foster humility. If two people disagree without arguing, all they do is yell at each other. No progress is made. Both still think that they are right. In contrast, if both sides give arguments that articulate reasons for their positions, then new possibilities open up. One possibility is that one of the arguments gets refuted—that is, it is shown to fail. In that case, the person who depended on the refuted argument learns that he needs to change his view. That is one way to achieve humility—on one side at least. Another possibility is that neither argument is refuted. Both have a degree of reason on their side. Even if neither interlocutor is convinced by the other’s argument, both can still come to appreciate the opposing view. They also realize that, even if they have some truth, they do not have the whole truth. They can gain humility when they recognize and appreciate the reasons against their own view.
How can arguments induce such humility? The best way to reduce opponents’ overconfidence and make them open to your position might seem to be an overwhelming argument that shows them why they are wrong and why you are right. Sometimes that works, but only rarely.
What usually works better is to ask questions—in particular, to ask opponents for reasons. Questions are often more powerful than assertions. But which questions? We need to learn to ask the right kinds of questions, the ones that lead to productive conversations. In one experiment, Steven Sloman, professor of psychology at Brown University, and his colleagues found roughly that asking people why they hold their beliefs leads to less humility and openness to conflicting views than asking them how their proposal works.7 The question of how cap and trade policies reduce global warming, for example, asks subjects to spell out a causal mechanism step by step. Subjects found it difficult to specify this mechanism, so they came to realize that they did not understand their own position well enough, and they became more moderate and open to alternative views. We can also ask ourselves similar questions. Questioning how our own plans are supposed to work will likely make us more humble and open-minded, because we will come to realize that we do not understand as much as we thought or as much as we need.
Moreover, if we regularly ask others and ourselves such questions, then we will probably come to anticipate such questions in advance. Jennifer Lerner and Philip Tetlock, psychologists at Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania, respectively, have shown that accountability—expecting to need to give reasons for claims—leads people to base their positions more on relevant facts and less on personal likes and dislikes.8 A context that creates such expectations—including a culture that encourages asking such questions about reasons—could then help to foster humility, understanding, reasoning, and arguments that give answers to questions about reasons.
The goal of questioning and humility is not to make one lose confidence in cases where confidence is justified. Proper humility does not require one to lose all self-confidence, to give up all beliefs, or to grovel or debase oneself. One can still hold one’s beliefs strongly while recognizing that there are reasons to believe otherwise, that one might be wrong, and that one does not have the whole truth. Giving and expecting reasons along with asking and answering questions can help move us in this direction.
Abstraction
Arguments can also undermine polarization. If people are more humble and modest, they are less likely to adopt extreme positions. They are also less likely to be so sure of their own positions that they think of their opponents as stupid or immoral, so they will become less abusive and antagonistic.
There is also a less obvious way in which arguments undermine polarization. They lead people to think more abstractly. When people formulate arguments for their positions, such as political stances, they usually appeal to abstract principles, such as general rights. Another method employs analogies, but those analogies tend to rely on abstract similarities between otherwise distinct cases. Thus, many common forms of argument require reasoners to abstract away from details of a particular case and think about the issues from a more abstract perspective.
Abstract thinking then reduces polarization, at least in the right contexts. When people think about a political issue, they can think of themselves either as a citizen of their country or as a member of their particular political party. Research has shown that, when people identify with their particular political party, abstract thinking can increase polarization. In contrast, when people identify with their country as a whole, abstract thinking decreases polarization between groups inside that country.9 The mechanism behind this effect is unclear, but people who think abstractly in terms of their country appeal both to principles that bind together their whole country and also to interests that they share with other citizens of their country. These appeals have just as much force for many of their opponents within their country, so the result is less polarization and more mutual understanding.
Of course, abstraction need not stop at one’s country. It is also possible for people to identify with their species, so that they view themselves as a human like other humans, even those in other countries. I would speculate that abstract thinking in this perspective might even help to overcome antagonism and polarization between countries.
The evidence does not suggest that political opponents will suddenly become best friends as soon as they think about arguments by their opponents and by themselves. We need to be more patient than that. Nonetheless, a cultural shift toward more use of arguments and a better appreciation of arguments might have some effect on polarization by inducing more abstract thinking.
Compromise
Last but not least, arguments can enable compromises. If I know your reasons for disagreeing with me, and you know my reasons for disagreeing with you, then we can work together to find an intermediate position that satisfies both of our concerns. Imagine that you favor an increase in the minimum wage because anyone who works full time should not live in poverty, whereas I oppose increasing the minimum wage because it will reduce the number of jobs for the poor. You are concerned about poverty among workers, and I am concerned about jobs. Knowing our reasons, we can seek a compromise position that will raise as many workers as possible above poverty without costing too many jobs. If we had not given our reasons (if we omitted the “because clauses”), then we would not know where to look for a compromise that we can both live with.
You might ask, “So what?” Why do we need compromise anyway? Although 82% of consistent liberals prefer leaders who compromise, 63% of consistent conservatives prefer leaders who stick to their principles.10 Both positions can cite support. Failure to compromise can lead to war, but still some compromises are rotten.11 Famous examples in the United States include the Three-Fifths compromise (which counted slaves as three-fifths of a person in calculating the populations of states) and the Missouri Compromise (which allowed slavery in some areas but not others). The most infamous example in Europe is Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s. Sometimes—as in the cases of slavery and Hitler—maybe we should not compromise. However, does this admission apply to compromises today? If people really hate their
rivals as much as slavery and Hitler, then they might have reason to oppose compromise with such devils. But then the basic problem is that the two sides hate each other as much as slavery and Hitler. Without that extreme assumption, compromise would often be desirable.
Of course, no compromise is perfect. Compromise is not easy. It is not ideal. It is not without dangers. But it is still necessary. We need to be able to compromise in some cases in order to get anything done. The best compromises are constructive in the sense that they create more value and leave both sides better off. Competing parties will not know how to fashion such compromises unless they know what the other side values. The best way to learn their values and thereby to facilitate compromise is to listen carefully to their reasons and arguments.
WHERE DO WE STAND NOW?
The problem of polarization pervades politics and cultures around the world today, as we saw in previous chapters. This chapter suggests that a better understanding of arguments and the reasons that they express can go some way toward ameliorating those problems. Why? Because reasons and arguments express respect, improve understanding, induce humility, undermine overconfidence, engender abstraction that reduces polarization, and enable cooperation and compromise.
I realize that this proposal will strike many critics as overly optimistic and simplistic. Don’t I realize that arguments cannot change the world? Yes. Of course, merely learning more about arguments plus giving and asking for more arguments cannot by themselves solve all of the problems of the world. I admit that. Nonetheless, a beginning of a partial solution is not worthless just because it does not solve the whole problem in one fell swoop. My hope is that learning about arguments can reduce some of the barriers that keep us apart and prevent us from working together.
Think Again: How to Reason and Argue Page 6