COMMON
SENSE PRINCIPLES OF DISCUSSION
by Anthony Rizzi
Effective and civil discussion is absolutely
essential in reestablishing science on its firm foundation. Since discussion
has in recent times become less and less clearly centered on its purpose —
which is to get to the truth — we find we have developed bad habits of
discussion. Indeed it often happens that, despite our good intentions,
discussions degenerate into incivility. It is our hope that the following
thoughts will help restore the right emphasis and civility in conversation.
l) The aim of discussion is to
arrive at a precise statement of a problem
and a true answer. It is profitable if progress in achieving this goal
is made even if there is not ultimate success.
2) The first step in critical
thinking must be to state a problem clearly in the form A is B, or at least
that A is not B. Many disagreements arise from not being clear about what
problem is to be solved.
3) lf you are speaking to someone
who has more education and knowledge in the field under discussion, give
deference to him. This means that conversation will not equally split with each
person speaking 50% of the time. Clearly, the one who has more knowledge will
necessarily have to
spend more time relating it.
a)
The receiver of knowledge
should not resent the giver merely because the giver gives more, i.e. speaks
more. Indeed, like the receiver of a wonderful material gift, the spiritual
gift of knowledge should be received with sincere appreciation. Few who receive
a gift of gold will respond with accusations of unfairness about the inequity
involved of them not being able to respond in kind. Rather, most will receive
it with great thanks and enthusiasm as lottery winners do. Since the spiritual
gift of knowledge is literally infinitely more valuable, the gratitude of the
receiver of knowledge should be immense.
b)
One essential way of showing gratitude to the giver, which is also an exercise
of justice, is to remember his gift and acknowledge him to others. Remembering
is key in the process of finding and verifying trustworthy sources, for one
needs to remember who has given what to be able to note whose information is
reliable.
b)
The giver should always act
and respond charitably to the receiver, never using his knowledge as a club to
assert superiority. Instead, the giver should remember that his own knowledge
is ultimately itself a gift. Even first hand knowledge is not our own, for it
ultimately comes from the external world, which in turn is from God.
c)
Both sides should be grateful
for the opportunity for discussion, because, if nothing else, it is an
opportunity to be present to your fellowman, through the exercise of the
highest human power: the intellect. After all, you are conversing with a being
made in the very image of God and in that very
conversing you are manifesting and seeing manifested that image, which is man’s
intellectual power. Beyond this, the receiver should be thankful for the new
understanding he receives and the giver for the new perspective opened up to
his own mind by carefully answering the points made by the receiver. For each
party, it is the opportunity to serve his fellowman.
4) If you say something
inappropriate or wrong, be quick to apologize and/or acknowledge it. If you are
the recipient of such an act, be quick to forgive the offense.
5) If there is a significant
relational problem between the parties of the conversation, recognize it and
discuss it; don’t let it become a subtext to the discussion. Nothing kills a
conversation faster than arguing about something without letting the other know
that one is arguing about it. Bad feelings
result, and they linger and become
detrimental to future conversation as well.
6) We should not be afraid to
acknowledge when we don’t know something. Yet it is sometimes hard to phrase a
question in a way that doesn’t make us look more ignorant than we actually are.
To overcome this dilemma, and the feeling of inadequacy that may result, it may
help to use a form of discussion like the following: “I thought that x was y,
because z. Can you explain to me why you think x is not y.”
7)
Since conversation should always be directed toward truth, one should never
just end a conversation abruptly without thought. As much as possible, plan the closing; try to summarize the
conclusions that have been reached and the areas of disagreement still to be
ironed out. In this way, the goal of conversation is advanced while respecting
the practical truth that reaching a particular truth often takes more time and
effort than can be had in one conversation. Alternatively, one could plan a
topic of discussion that will fit within the available time or vice-versa.
8) Always try to put the best face
on what your discussion partner is saying. St. Thomas was known for stating the
opponent’s argument better than the opponent himself had. One must do this not
only to refute a bad argument, but to protect and explore the truths contained
in his argument. Remember: your opponent may be--indeed, in his area of
expertise he probably is — right.
9) St. Thomas Aquinas says "lt
makes no difference who said it, but only if it is true." The attitude of
the discussants must be an honest attempt to find a true solution to the
problem, not to claim superiority, or to impose agreement, or deceive. Again,
no one needs to be ashamed to admit a mistake or feel inferior merely because
they must learn from another.
10) Honesty in discussion is made
easier when discussants are courteous, giving the parties the sense of security
needed to be open with each other. They must indicate that they are willing to
learn from the other and, even when there is disagreement, recognize that even
in error there is always some truth that should be recognized by all. Remember
error is a perversion- -a twisting-— of some truth. A wise rule is,
"Seldom deny; always distinguish? Interpret the person’s words and frame
your responses in such a way as to give him the benefit of any doubt. Find the
maximum amount of
truth in what he says rather than
the minimum. Look for the key truth that is propelling his argument. Yet, be
careful to not let a false courtesy take hold and become a means to avoid the
real discussion and postpone ad infinitum
an important point. One must attack the error, which is distinct from the
person holding it.
11) Discussants must be ready to
consider their fundamental presuppositions and possible biases. “A small error
in the beginning leads to big errors in the end.” Most persistent disagreements
arise from foundational principles that are not clearly realized, formulated,
or admitted. If your partner is gifted, has studied more deeply and profoundly
than yourself, and is more educated in the fundamentals, one should carefully
and respectfully listen to understand the important fundamentals you may have
missed.
12) When arguing a point, don’t
start with a pathological or extreme case, start with the situation in its
healthy, proper state; understand it first, then move to understand the
pathology. In the pathology-versus-health analogy, if one doesn’t know what it
is to be well, sickness cannot be understood.
13) Every assertion must ultimately
be rooted in sense experience, and discussants must be willing to point out the
facts on which their assertions rest. This goes even for statements of faith,
since our trust in those wiser than ourselves must be guaranteed by evidence of
their trustworthiness. It
must be admitted by all discussants
that we often must trust reliable persons for information since no mere man can
experience firsthand all the facts and have all the training necessary to solve
all problems.
14) Don’t get bogged down in
technical details; especially avoid tendencies to use the details as an excuse
to avoid the larger, more difficult — but probably more important — problem.
The flip side of this is once the larger difficulty is solved the details
cannot be ignored; don’t let the solution of the
generic be an excuse to avoid the
details and the technical work. Obviously, different professions will have
different tendencies, and one must know his own temperament to guard
effectively against these extremes.
No comments:
Post a Comment