BEING HONEST IN OUR THINKING AND IN OUR ARGUMENTS
Christopher Ebbe, Ph.D. 10-11
ABSTRACT: The human tendency to gloss over or ignore in our discussions and our writing evidence against what we wish to believe is discussed. The advantages and costs of greater openness and honesty are described.
KEY WORDS: honesty, rhetoric, argument, reality
Human beings are not born automatically “knowing” what is real and what is true. We gain knowledge of reality slowly and often painfully. This circumstance allows us to indulge in one of our favorite activities—ignoring or distorting reality. We think that whenever something is not firmly “known,” as when there are various opinions or beliefs about something, we are free to make up and believe whatever we wish on the matter. (By “known,” we usually mean that “everyone” agrees on something and no one would question it. This, of course, does not make it true, as you will recall that everyone believed that the world was flat at one point in time.) We deny and distort reality in order to feel better, either to escape from our discomfort with uncertainty and “not knowing” (pretending that we know more than we really do; using a crystal ball to predict the future; using prayer to reassure ourselves that we will be all right) or to create a supposed reality that is more comfortable or pleasant (“he would never leave me;” “I am invincible and will never die;” “our army could never be defeated;” “capitalism is guaranteed to give me the most retirement income”).
We employ this presumption or pretension that what we think or want to think is reality not only with ourselves but also when we try to convince others that what we claim is true. Thus, discussions, speeches, courtroom trials, editorials, other writing, and arguments usually become a contest to see whose assertions will prevail and will therefore be presumed to be true, even when they are based on hidden falsehoods or lies and even when we could “know” if we were willing to admit it that an agreed upon assumption can never be knowledge. We have even set up our justice system to encourage this assertion of falsehoods by expecting opposing counsel to say things that they do not know to be true in order to get the jury to agree with them.
In our struggle to determine what is true, there are tools and strategies that can help us. We can seriously and objectively consider the various alternatives (he loves me; he loves me not), seeking and assessing the evidence for each possibility. We can find out what others have thought about the matter, including those around us whom we trust as well as people in the past. We can do our best to remove our personal prejudices and desires from the matter, so that we can see the truth more clearly, even if it is unpleasant to see. Even though on many matters we will never be completely sure of what is true, by using these methods sincerely, we can get as close to the truth as human beings can get. (For a more complete discussion of truth-finding, see the essay “Gaining Wisdom and Maturity.”)
Besides having limited accurate information, the thing that most beclouds the truth is our tendency to find and accept evidence only for what we want to believe (and many people also continue to believe subconsciously that to want something magically helps to make it happen and to want something to be true magically tends to make it true). This leads us to present only one side of things and change what could be truth-finding into a struggle between several possibilities to “win.” What some people refer to as trying to take a positive attitude or be optimistic is actually just ignoring any suggestion or evidence that does not support doing what they want to do. Some who are in difficult straits might feel that ignoring the negative is the only way to keep from getting mired in despair and depression, but ignoring contrary reality is both upsetting and downright dangerous when it is practiced by those upon whom we depend for decisions that affect our lives, particularly parents, scientists, academics, government leaders, and religious leaders. You have no doubt noticed how all of these leaders often tell you only one side of the story, ignoring legitimate, competing views and failing to address the flaws in their own arguments.
I suggest that we both review and revise our own truth-finding methods and hold accountable those who express their views publicly as if those views were unquestionably true. The challenge for us as individuals is to do the work of doing the most we can to find and know the truth and then to face and tolerate the unpleasantness of truth that we don’t like. Since we must often act without knowing the truth with certainty, we must also tolerate the uncertainty of knowing that we are acting without knowing!
We would be more honest and accountable if every time we assert something about an uncertain matter or matter of opinion, we also mentioned our explanation or position regarding some key data that do not support our position. For example, in the debate about whether God exists, it would be honest for those who think that God exists to also say “I realize that all of the evidence that I have cited for the existence of God—the wonders of nature, the wonders of being a human being, the fact that life is generally good, the fact that God has given me signs, etc.—could just as readily be interpreted as not indicating that God exists. He could then go on to state why it is more likely that God exists than that God does not exist, given the uncertainty of the evidence.
It would be honest for a person who wants to outlaw abortion to say “I realize that while I think that a two-celled foetus is already a person, it is not unreasonable to think that it is not a person.” She could then say why it is more likely that a two-celled foetus fits the definition of a person than that it does not.
A person who advocates for capitalism might argue that the taxes of the rich be reduced, so that they can use that extra money to start more businesses and employ more people. It would be more honest of him to then explain why it appears that often when taxes on the rich are reduced, they do not actually start more businesses, instead of ignoring this data that does not support his argument. The point is that to present only one side of things is simply asking the listener or reader to agree with you without thinking the matter through. It may, of course, indicate that the speaker has not thought it through either and simply wants his viewpoint to be accepted, regardless of whether it is true and regardless of whether it is the best explanation of reality.
In deciding whether to be more honest in presenting and actually arguing for our conclusions, both to ourselves and to others, we must first reach a conclusion on a fundamental question—whether we will benefit more from trying to convince others to agree with us (with no regard for truth) or from trying to reach conclusions that are closest to the truth and to reality and helping others to reach those conclusions as well.
(1) Our goal-related and purpose-related efforts are more successful when our decisions are made by taking as much of reality as we can into account. This includes the reality of our external operations and the reality of how we impact other people and how they will react to us as a result. Illusions may be comforting, but living in a fantasy world results in running into doors, falling off of cliffs, and alienating others.
(2) Continuously trying to get others to go along with what we want or want to believe leads to more conflict between people than when we all openly and honestly seek to find what is closest to reality and the truth, since if getting our own way is the only criteria for choosing a belief or behavior, others have just as much right to assert their wishes as we do, and the competition to be “right” is guaranteed to lead to conflict. Of course, suppressing that conflict by forcing others to shut up and go along with us also reduces the overt conflict, but it results in more unhappy people. Human beings need some structure for making joint decisions, whether that is reality or morality. Otherwise social living is simply a jungle in which the strong always triumph.
(3) By acknowledging the weaknesses in our assertions, we indicate to others that we are not just trying to convince or take advantage of them, and this induces them to treat us similarly and to treat us better than if they viewed us as dangerous (or later concluded that we had been deceiving them).
(4) You may think that issues can be just a matter of opinion, but this is true only for those issues that involve only your feelings (or your opinion of them). Every issue that involves the external world or the joint needs of people has a solution (opinion) that is closest to reality and to the truth as we understand it at the time, and all other solutions (opinions) are not as consistent with reality or the truth.
Begin to question your own beliefs, assumptions, and statements to see if they are supported by the weight of the evidence that you are aware of or whether they are simply what you want to be true or want others to accept. This includes the things that you believe, assume, or state simply because everyone else seems to believe them. Just because most people agree does not mean that what they agree on is true or conforms to reality. Do you have the courage to examine your beliefs, assumptions, and statements? Make it a habit before you speak to ask yourself whether what you are about to say can stand up to the contrary evidence, and after you make an assertion, state the major contrary evidence, and state why you do not favor that view. When you have revised your beliefs, assumptions, and statements to be closer to the truth, challenge others (friends, family, political leaders, editorial writers) to do the same.
blog\postings\honestinarguments
