• Investing
  • Stock
Round Table Thoughts
  • Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
Home Economy In Defense of Arguing
Economy

In Defense of Arguing

by December 9, 2022
by December 9, 2022 0 comment
Share
0
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsapp

Do you want a romantic partner who loves to argue? Do you want employees, colleagues, and friends who criticize you? Do you value politicians and public intellectuals who aggressively challenge each other? If so, you are among an increasingly scarce breed. Despite its roots in rhetoric and philosophy, the notion of “arguing” as a way of resolving conflict has an unmistakably negative connotation. We conflate arguing with aggression, violence, even war. Arguing, and contradicting what other people believe, is often seen as offensive, confrontational, disrespectful. 

But to the organized mind, in pursuit not of comforting half-truths but genuine truth, willingness to argue is a crucial trait. We push back against assertions and authority because we value the truth of an idea more than its emotional agreeableness. One person advances an idea, others criticize or question it, and a refined idea emerges. Occasionally, someone turns out to be wrong. 

A recent post from the Foundation for Economic Education’s “Revolution of One” project summarizes the social value of realizing you’re wrong:

The value of being wrong is undersold by a society that penalizes mistakes. When you’re wrong, you get an opportunity to learn and improve your thinking. Mistakes are inherently valuable, even if they’re not desirable.

Being seen as ‘argumentative,’ challenging ideas in an attempt to refine them, doesn’t make you popular, especially in a world that values the methods, nor the good intentions of the argumentative sort.  Submitting your ideas for general argument and encouraging people to criticize the ideas (hopefully not their author) is equally difficult work. 

The competent manager relishes argument between his staff members, because it helps him see all sides of an issue and come to the best decision. When the stakes are high and the chips are down, we shouldn’t ignore those who want to contradict and object. They may help us to see the angles we have not yet considered, point out our blindspots. 

Virtually all of the interesting moral and scientific progress over the past several centuries is a result of asking not, “what don’t we know?” but “what if we’re wrong?” Diseases and environmental phenomena are crucial parts of human experience, so we made up explanations that seemed plausible to some degree or another. In the absence of germ theory, “miasma” and witchcraft were bad ideas in general circulation. A willingness to be wrong, and to argue with orthodoxy, precedes the experimentation that reveals genuine truth with provable results.

But judging by their willingness to argue and be argued with, most people and institutions these days are not in pursuit of truth. 

Peer review and academic freedom, in the social sciences and hard sciences alike, were attempts to encode contrary views and arguments into the process of knowledge formation. As faculties, and indeed entire disciplines became more ideologically narrow and rigid, the pursuit of truth is badly damaged because raising contrary points of view, even without personally espousing them, is frowned upon. Countering academic orthodoxy could mean being excluded from tenure, from grants, from important institutional committees and professional bodies. Even if several voices are allowed in the discourse, the argument phase is quickly abandoned because one side does not believe alternatives should be heard, and the other fears the professional consequences of raising alternatives that will be shortly silenced anyway. 

The scientific method argues against itself by requiring the rigorous collection of data, to be compared to the null hypothesis. But these processes no longer reliably guide scientific development, as data sets are hidden from scrutiny, theories shielded from criticism, and the search for evidence replaced by the promotion of a conclusion. In increasingly complex fields where computer modeling or statistical projection, rather than observation, is relied on for data, the failsafes of the self-arguing method start to falter.

In the matter of our Constitutional Republic, we encourage argument as a way of refining and stress-testing ideas before they’re inflicted upon the People. The branches argue with each other, and even both houses of Congress argue with each other, with the goal of coming up with something close to “truth” or “wisdom” out of the process. That’s not how it works now. Political parties and “sides of the aisle,” are certainly not among those established checks and balances, and have done nothing to promote truth in policymaking or judgment in legislating. The self-reinforcing web of power, funding, and bureaucracy has walled itself off from challenge.

Far too often now, in the US Congress legislation is pushed through without substantive debate either at the committee level or in either of the two chambers. Amendments are often not allowed, despite the practice of cramming several or even dozens of issues into the same bill. This allows for the success of “poison pill” provisions, and also outright bullying and deception by legislative whips who demand fealty to party far above honest assessment of a bill’s contents. Simple attempts to encourage substantive discussions have failed, even a resolution requiring adequate time to read bills (one day per 20 pages of legislative text between a bill’s introduction to the Senate and the chamber vote) is routinely rejected. Debate is pro-forma. Criticism by amendment is rare. 

We can easily see the value of a contrary voice in, say, the 1950s offices of federal highway administrators. Interstates overhauled our way of life, but a nation reliant on cars, hostage to gas prices, and burdened by crumbling infrastructure isn’t an ideal outcome for public investments. Someone could have been around to argue with asphalt evangelists who were forcibly restructured the country around private automobile ownership, with predictable adverse outcomes for many. Had there been more willingness to question whether a car-centered country was an unalloyed good, we might have come to a less error-prone set of practices.

Presidential debates at least appear to be a structured argument of issues for the benefit of voters, and may have been when they were hosted by The League of Women Voters until 1988. The events are now pre-negotiated by the Democratic and Republican parties, who treat them as a joint press conference. Those “debates” are neither intended to, nor able to uncover any useful truth or even a meaningful contradiction. Candidates do not address one another except through the moderator. Questions are limited to pre-selected topics, ignoring the most-critical issues, including national debt and Social Security. Qualified candidates are excluded, artificially limiting the exchange of ideas. Candidates for many lesser offices skip scheduled debates entirely, dodging even the limited transparency such neutered arguments might offer. 

Our skills and willingness to argue in good faith are our best hope of improving our knowledge, as individuals, nations, and a species. When we refuse to engage in argument, even out of perceived politeness, we allow more bad ideas to take hold and propagate. Unintended consequences and wasted resources multiply. In our own minds, we lose both our willingness and the peace of mind required to argue with our own preconceptions. We become easily (mis)led. We inevitably, if unintentionally, mislead others. We all stray further from the truths that, if we could hash out what works and what doesn’t, could be freeing us from hardships, disease, poverty, collective guilt, and violence as a mechanism for solving problems. Argument is essential to addressing these challenges. Arguing well does not diminish us. It empowers us. 

Overhauling our national institutions is ARGUABLY too ambitious a goal to fit into our busy schedules. But the value of argument to refine our thinking can be practiced in small ways, too. Offer encouragement to people who raise objections in meetings you have to attend, even if you disagree. Praise people for their passion when they argue with you. Notice when you’re defensive and ask yourself why the challenge is upsetting. Actually listen. Ask new questions, and seek new answers to old ones. Be willing to consider that you might be wrong. (We all are, about lots of things, though we rarely suspect it.) Read or listen to the best-informed people whose views make your blood boil. Bring back debate club and forensics study.

Let’s get used to healthy argument again. We’re not attacking each other. We’re in pursuit of the truth.

You Might Also Like
  • Israeli hostage briefly escaped Hamas before locals handed him back to terrorists: family
  • Harvard journal accepts left-wing paper accusing fossil fuel industry of homicide
  • The dollar index is bullish again from this morning
  • Biden admin reverses Trump-era action making it easier to build fossil fuel pipelines
Share
0
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsapp

previous post
Consumer Sentiment Improved in Early December but Remains Weak
next post
Lululemon stock is down 13% today: buy the dip?

You may also like

Harris dodging flip-flop attacks as faceless surrogates flip key positions:...

August 15, 2024

Harris lacked confidence, presidential demeanor in first TV interview: body...

August 30, 2024

What Are Prop Firms, And How Does Prop Trading Work?

September 23, 2024

Project 2025 leader steps down amid criticism from Trump

July 30, 2024

Biden campaign pounces on Trump’s guilty criminal trial verdict: ‘No...

May 31, 2024

NPR CEO slams editor who exposed bias. Looks like truth...

April 16, 2024

Biden classified documents: Republicans react to DOJ seizing more secret...

January 22, 2023

Delegation of Australian lawmakers will visit US to push for...

September 9, 2023

Biden nominates northern Indiana magistrate judge to 7th Circuit

July 28, 2023

Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson ends Republican campaign for president...

January 17, 2024

    Stay updated with the latest news, exclusive offers, and special promotions. Sign up now and be the first to know! As a member, you'll receive curated content, insider tips, and invitations to exclusive events. Don't miss out on being part of something special.


    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Tesla agrees to first deal to build China’s largest grid-scale battery power plant

      June 21, 2025
    • Oil prices rise more than 1% as Israel vows to intensify attacks on Iran

      June 20, 2025
    • RRG Alert Tech Vaults to ‘Leading’—Is XLK Signaling a New Rally?

      June 20, 2025
    • Apple looking to make ‘premium’-priced folding iPhones starting next year, analyst says

      June 20, 2025
    • Nike pushes back Skims launch with Kim Kardashian due to production delays

      June 19, 2025

    Popular Posts

    • 1

      Biden appointee played key role in recruiting Chinese...

      June 25, 2024 3,599 views
    • 2

      Trump-era China sanctions ended by Biden may be...

      June 27, 2024 2,875 views
    • 3

      Walz’s honeymoon with China gets fresh scrutiny as...

      August 9, 2024 2,578 views
    • 4

      Shein’s global ambitions leaves some cybersecurity experts fearful...

      July 10, 2024 2,541 views
    • 5

      Harris VP pick spent years promoting research facility...

      August 29, 2024 2,417 views

    Categories

    • Economy (7,009)
    • Editor's Pick (2,143)
    • Investing (538)
    • Stock (2,621)

    Popular Posts

    • 1

      Biden appointee played key role in recruiting Chinese businesses to Delaware: ‘Longtime friends’

      June 25, 2024
    • 2

      Trump-era China sanctions ended by Biden may be revived under new House GOP bill

      June 27, 2024
    • 3

      Walz’s honeymoon with China gets fresh scrutiny as Harris camp blasts ‘lying’ critics

      August 9, 2024
    • 4

      Shein’s global ambitions leaves some cybersecurity experts fearful of Chinese spy threats

      July 10, 2024
    • 5

      Harris VP pick spent years promoting research facility that collaborated with ‘Chinese military company’

      August 29, 2024

    Latest News

    • Tesla agrees to first deal to build China’s largest grid-scale...

      June 21, 2025
    • Oil prices rise more than 1% as Israel vows to...

      June 20, 2025
    • RRG Alert Tech Vaults to ‘Leading’—Is XLK Signaling a New...

      June 20, 2025

    Categories

    • Economy (7,009)
    • Editor's Pick (2,143)
    • Investing (538)
    • Stock (2,621)

    Disclaimer: RoundTableThoughts.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2024 RoundTableThoughts.com. All Rights Reserved.

    Round Table Thoughts
    • Investing
    • Stock
    Round Table Thoughts
    • Economy
    • Editor’s Pick

    Read alsox

    Missouri’s new senator vows to fight...

    January 19, 2023

    How Individuals Enable Tyranny

    January 13, 2023

    Weiss says he ‘wasn’t granted’ special...

    November 10, 2023
    Sign In

    Keep me signed in until I sign out

    Forgot your password?

    Password Recovery

    A new password will be emailed to you.

    Have received a new password? Login here