I have often said that I think arguments are a waste of time. That is my opinion, though. Others may think arguments are valuable, and hence, not a waste of time. They have a point, but I think it depends on whether or not the argument is a genuine discussion in which both sides honestly want to explore their differences, or whether the goal is to persuade.
The latter approach tends to become a competitive rhetorical contest, something akin to gamesmanship or athletic contests in which the goal is to beat the opponent. And in athletics, while beaten opponents might lose a particular game or event, they are not generally considered beaten in the sense of conceding that they were “wrong,” and so usually they will simply try to win the next time. Winning as a goal is the whole idea, and being right has nothing to do with it. This is why debating contests are generally no way to sort out intellectually what is true, and it is why I generally see arguments in which parties set out to “win” as a waste of time. (The process is better suited for lawyers, who are at least paid to win.)
A major problem which I think makes arguments a time-waster involves the confusion of opinion with fact. If (as has happened) someone tells me what God thinks, and I reply that this is only his opinion, but that I have a different opinion, and he tells me that I am not entitled to have that opinion because what God thinks is a “fact,” and I then reply that it is only his opinion that there is a God, that, assuming there is a God, that it is only his opinion that he has selected the right God, and that it is also his opinion that the God he favors in fact thinks what he asserts “God” thinks (assuming God’s opinion carries more weight than that of a given human), then we have no basis for argument, because we cannot even agree that we have different opinions. Global warming is similar, and in some ways even worse, because opinions of scientists are often considered to be “facts” in ways that opinions of theologians are not.
(It should go without saying that it does not matter how many people hold a given opinion; even billions of opinions do not render them right, etc. Yet it does not go without saying; many people think the rightness of something ought to be decided by numbers of people who think it, or for how long.)
To me, that is the worst aspect of arguments; so often what people consider facts are actually opinions. And, if we cannot agree on the difference between fact and opinion, the arguments are a complete waste of time.
Add the factor of competitiveness, and “winning” becomes the ability to transform opinions into facts.
And even if that might seem like the way to win an argument, it isn’t winning the truth, for the simple reason that the truth is not something to be won. It just is.
Comments
11 responses to “The endless hopelessness of arguments”
Eric –
“What is” will always win . . . because “is” . . . is – what is.
The problem, as always . . . is . . .
Who determines what Is?
Pax – jb
That’s the problem. No one determines what is.
(Others would disagree…)
Eric –
In the physical sciences, we have some options available. Not all, mind you, because nature is reluctant to fully undress herself.
Theologically – “is” – is a matter of faith. Many will try to insinuate their faith upon others; I, myself, let my words and deeds be my witness, although I am a theologian by training and trade.
“Is” . . . is what is really real.
What that is, is a source of genuine argumentation. That, I motion, and contrary to your assertion, is not a waste of time. In every argument I have ever had, I have learned something with which I can improve what I think and who I am.
That is not a waste of time, but illumination.
Pax tecum – jb
Ireland will vote early next year on same sex marriage. As recently as 2004, the Irish version of DOMA was made law by amending their constitution. After ten years of argument and persuasion, opinion has turned 180 degrees.
In 2004, the Civil Registration Act, which included a prohibition of same-sex marriage was passed. The act explicitly declared that there was an “impediment to a marriage” if “both parties are of the same sex”.
A late 2012 poll by Millward Brown Lansdowne shows that 75% would vote in favour of extending marriage to same-sex couples.
A poll in November 2013 (by RED C for Paddy Power) showed that 76% of voters intended to support the introduction of same-sex marriage in any referendum, with 18% opposed and 6% undecided (with the undecideds excluded the ratio is 81% support, 19% against). Support was highest among women (85%), those under 44 (87%), Labour supporters (96%) and those living in Dublin and commuter counties (83%).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland
Persuasive argument works.
Also look at the numbers on marijuana. I believe the number of smokers (current or former) in the US is in the 40 to 50% range. Those favoring legalization run in the 50% to 60% range.
It doesn’t take a lot of persuasion to change politics.
I am not saying that people cannot be persuaded — or at least appear to be persuaded — to change their minds (historical examples abound, both good and bad), only that I consider personally consider it a waste of time, especially when the arguments are ones I have heard before and involve things I have already thought about and already have an opinion. Unless someone has something genuinely new to say (as opposed to recitals of what he has heard), I find the process unbearable to the point of madness. It is why I cannot stand organizational politics or attending meetings. I wish there were some kind of Golden Rule along the lines of “I won’t try to persuade you if you won’t try to persuade me,” but most people don’t operate that way. That people are fickle only makes the process worse.
Between individuals, arguing can be fruitful providing both participants have an open mind and assume that each other are arguing in good faith.
To me, open-mindedness means that one realizes that they could be wrong in their beliefs and opinions. They understand that there may well be other evidence and/or logical argumentation that could change their minds about an issue.
OTOH, a closed minded person is one who isn’t open to evidence or argument. In short, there is nothing you could say or show them that could ever change their minds, indicating a closed mind.
It’s understandable that we are cautioned not to broach the subjects of politics or religion in social settings precisely because so many people are quite closed minded in their beliefs in these areas.
The big lie in politics today is that the Left is open-minded and the Right is closed-minded. As far as I can tell, both are open-minded on certain things and closed-mined on others, although not necessarily on the same issues.
When we exchange ideas in an open forum like the web, we need to realize that what we post is being read by both the closed and open minded. So what is said may not affect the thinking of the closed-minded, however it can have an affect on the more open-minded among us. Given that these days more voters identify as independents rather than Dem or Repub indicates to me that there are open-minded voters out there. And sometimes the closed-minded do change their minds, it just may take longer.
The biggest problem these days is that Moynihan has been proven wrong; you can have your own facts.
I stopped trying to argue about most stuff because I start off with one set of facts, the other person has theirs.
I think mine are correct, they things theirs are.
So how can I argue global warmmongering when I say the Earth stopped warming around 1997 and the other person thinks it’s still warming?
Personally, I like to engage in debate (or argument) as an outside check on my internal train of thought. By airing my opinions to an honest opponent, I quickly find out how rigorous my thought process has been, and to what extent I am simply incorrect.
I only rarely engage in argument with the intent to persuade. Except possibly with Simon. 🙂
Eric, none of us has the whole truth. Opposition in all things is all you can be sure of and also be thankful for it, for it is the preeminent law of nature that gives each of us a chance to survive. Think!
Geez, I wanted to argue the point, but I see there is no point to that…