WEBVTT 00:00:01.267 --> 00:00:03.933 My name is Dan Cohen and I am an academic, as he said. 00:00:04.500 --> 00:00:07.576 And what that means is that I argue. 00:00:07.600 --> 00:00:09.243 It's an important part of my life. 00:00:09.267 --> 00:00:10.433 And I like to argue. 00:00:10.733 --> 00:00:14.109 And I'm not just an academic, I'm a philosopher, 00:00:14.133 --> 00:00:17.076 so I like to think that I'm actually pretty good at arguing. 00:00:17.100 --> 00:00:19.900 But I also like to think a lot about arguing. 00:00:20.367 --> 00:00:23.843 And in thinking about arguing, I've come across some puzzles. 00:00:23.867 --> 00:00:25.776 And one of the puzzles is that, 00:00:25.800 --> 00:00:28.343 as I've been thinking about arguing over the years -- 00:00:28.367 --> 00:00:29.776 and it's been decades now -- 00:00:29.800 --> 00:00:31.476 I've gotten better at arguing. 00:00:31.500 --> 00:00:35.009 But the more that I argue and the better I get at arguing, 00:00:35.033 --> 00:00:36.333 the more that I lose. 00:00:36.967 --> 00:00:38.209 And that's a puzzle. 00:00:38.233 --> 00:00:41.100 And the other puzzle is that I'm actually okay with that. 00:00:41.500 --> 00:00:43.343 Why is it that I'm okay with losing 00:00:43.367 --> 00:00:46.809 and why is it that I think good arguers are actually better at losing? 00:00:46.833 --> 00:00:48.843 Well, there are some other puzzles. 00:00:48.867 --> 00:00:50.743 One is: why do we argue? 00:00:50.767 --> 00:00:52.409 Who benefits from arguments? 00:00:52.433 --> 00:00:54.776 When I think about arguments, I'm talking about -- 00:00:54.800 --> 00:00:57.643 let's call them academic arguments or cognitive arguments -- 00:00:57.667 --> 00:00:59.509 where something cognitive is at stake: 00:00:59.533 --> 00:01:02.276 Is this proposition true? Is this theory a good theory? 00:01:02.300 --> 00:01:06.776 Is this a viable interpretation of the data or the text? And so on. 00:01:06.800 --> 00:01:10.776 I'm not interested really in arguments about whose turn it is to do the dishes 00:01:10.800 --> 00:01:12.476 or who has to take out the garbage. 00:01:12.500 --> 00:01:14.809 Yeah, we have those arguments, too. 00:01:14.833 --> 00:01:17.576 I tend to win those arguments, because I know the tricks. 00:01:17.600 --> 00:01:19.576 But those aren't the important arguments. 00:01:19.600 --> 00:01:21.376 I'm interested in academic arguments, 00:01:21.400 --> 00:01:23.267 and here are the things that puzzle me. 00:01:24.667 --> 00:01:27.743 First, what do good arguers win when they win an argument? 00:01:27.767 --> 00:01:30.243 What do I win if I convince you 00:01:30.267 --> 00:01:32.696 that utilitarianism isn't really the right framework 00:01:32.720 --> 00:01:34.476 for thinking about ethical theories? 00:01:34.500 --> 00:01:36.376 What do we win when we win an argument? 00:01:36.400 --> 00:01:37.743 Even before that, 00:01:37.767 --> 00:01:39.009 what does it matter to me 00:01:39.033 --> 00:01:41.976 whether you have this idea that Kant's theory works 00:01:42.000 --> 00:01:45.176 or Mill is the right ethicist to follow? 00:01:45.200 --> 00:01:46.576 It's no skin off my back 00:01:46.600 --> 00:01:49.767 whether you think functionalism is a viable theory of mind. 00:01:50.300 --> 00:01:52.343 So why do we even try to argue? 00:01:52.367 --> 00:01:54.209 Why do we try to convince other people 00:01:54.233 --> 00:01:56.409 to believe things they don't want to believe, 00:01:56.433 --> 00:01:58.209 and is that even a nice thing to do? 00:01:58.233 --> 00:02:00.476 Is that a nice way to treat another human being, 00:02:00.500 --> 00:02:03.476 try and make them think something they don't want to think? 00:02:03.500 --> 00:02:08.175 Well, my answer is going to make reference to three models for arguments. 00:02:08.199 --> 00:02:10.943 The first model -- let's call it the dialectical model -- 00:02:10.967 --> 00:02:13.876 is we think of arguments as war; you know what that's like -- 00:02:13.900 --> 00:02:16.609 a lot of screaming and shouting and winning and losing. 00:02:16.633 --> 00:02:18.776 That's not a very helpful model for arguing, 00:02:18.800 --> 00:02:21.543 but it's a pretty common and entrenched model for arguing. 00:02:21.567 --> 00:02:24.809 But there's a second model for arguing: arguments as proofs. 00:02:24.833 --> 00:02:26.909 Think of a mathematician's argument. 00:02:26.933 --> 00:02:29.709 Here's my argument. Does it work? Is it any good? 00:02:29.733 --> 00:02:34.209 Are the premises warranted? Are the inferences valid? 00:02:34.233 --> 00:02:36.776 Does the conclusion follow from the premises? 00:02:36.800 --> 00:02:39.209 No opposition, no adversariality -- 00:02:39.233 --> 00:02:44.909 not necessarily any arguing in the adversarial sense. 00:02:44.933 --> 00:02:46.909 But there's a third model to keep in mind 00:02:46.933 --> 00:02:48.909 that I think is going to be very helpful, 00:02:48.933 --> 00:02:53.943 and that is arguments as performances, arguments in front of an audience. 00:02:53.967 --> 00:02:56.909 We can think of a politician trying to present a position, 00:02:56.933 --> 00:02:59.076 trying to convince the audience of something. 00:02:59.100 --> 00:03:02.576 But there's another twist on this model that I really think is important; 00:03:02.600 --> 00:03:06.609 namely, that when we argue before an audience, 00:03:06.633 --> 00:03:10.709 sometimes the audience has a more participatory role in the argument; 00:03:10.733 --> 00:03:15.243 that is, arguments are also [performances] in front of juries, 00:03:15.267 --> 00:03:18.043 who make a judgment and decide the case. 00:03:18.067 --> 00:03:19.876 Let's call this the rhetorical model, 00:03:19.900 --> 00:03:23.609 where you have to tailor your argument to the audience at hand. 00:03:23.633 --> 00:03:26.276 You know, presenting a sound, well-argued, 00:03:26.300 --> 00:03:29.676 tight argument in English before a francophone audience 00:03:29.700 --> 00:03:31.300 just isn't going to work. 00:03:31.800 --> 00:03:35.443 So we have these models -- argument as war, argument as proof 00:03:35.467 --> 00:03:37.847 and argument as performance. 00:03:38.167 --> 00:03:41.933 Of those three, the argument as war is the dominant one. 00:03:42.467 --> 00:03:45.076 It dominates how we talk about arguments, 00:03:45.100 --> 00:03:47.143 it dominates how we think about arguments, 00:03:47.167 --> 00:03:50.143 and because of that, it shapes how we argue, 00:03:50.167 --> 00:03:51.943 our actual conduct in arguments. 00:03:51.967 --> 00:03:53.643 Now, when we talk about arguments, 00:03:53.667 --> 00:03:55.643 we talk in a very militaristic language. 00:03:55.667 --> 00:03:58.909 We want strong arguments, arguments that have a lot of punch, 00:03:58.933 --> 00:04:00.609 arguments that are right on target. 00:04:00.633 --> 00:04:03.809 We want to have our defenses up and our strategies all in order. 00:04:03.833 --> 00:04:06.409 We want killer arguments. 00:04:06.433 --> 00:04:08.430 That's the kind of argument we want. 00:04:09.200 --> 00:04:11.609 It is the dominant way of thinking about arguments. 00:04:11.633 --> 00:04:13.243 When I'm talking about arguments, 00:04:13.267 --> 00:04:16.100 that's probably what you thought of, the adversarial model. 00:04:16.445 --> 00:04:18.942 But the war metaphor, 00:04:18.966 --> 00:04:21.709 the war paradigm or model for thinking about arguments, 00:04:21.733 --> 00:04:24.700 has, I think, deforming effects on how we argue. 00:04:25.100 --> 00:04:28.067 First, it elevates tactics over substance. 00:04:28.967 --> 00:04:31.109 You can take a class in logic, argumentation. 00:04:31.133 --> 00:04:32.843 You learn all about the subterfuges 00:04:32.867 --> 00:04:35.743 that people use to try and win arguments -- the false steps. 00:04:35.767 --> 00:04:38.943 It magnifies the us-versus them aspect of it. 00:04:38.967 --> 00:04:42.376 It makes it adversarial; it's polarizing. 00:04:42.400 --> 00:04:48.209 And the only foreseeable outcomes are triumph -- glorious triumph -- 00:04:48.233 --> 00:04:51.309 or abject, ignominious defeat. 00:04:51.333 --> 00:04:53.076 I think those are deforming effects, 00:04:53.100 --> 00:04:56.943 and worst of all, it seems to prevent things like negotiation 00:04:56.967 --> 00:05:01.667 or deliberation or compromise or collaboration. 00:05:02.233 --> 00:05:05.400 Think about that one -- have you ever entered an argument thinking, 00:05:05.424 --> 00:05:08.809 "Let's see if we can hash something out, rather than fight it out. 00:05:08.833 --> 00:05:10.743 What can we work out together?" 00:05:10.767 --> 00:05:13.139 I think the argument-as-war metaphor 00:05:13.163 --> 00:05:17.576 inhibits those other kinds of resolutions to argumentation. 00:05:17.600 --> 00:05:20.043 And finally -- this is really the worst thing -- 00:05:20.067 --> 00:05:22.876 arguments don't seem to get us anywhere; they're dead ends. 00:05:22.900 --> 00:05:28.576 They are like roundabouts or traffic jams or gridlock in conversation. 00:05:28.600 --> 00:05:29.867 We don't get anywhere. 00:05:30.433 --> 00:05:31.709 And one more thing. 00:05:31.733 --> 00:05:34.643 And as an educator, this is the one that really bothers me: 00:05:34.667 --> 00:05:36.843 If argument is war, 00:05:36.867 --> 00:05:41.876 then there's an implicit equation of learning with losing. 00:05:41.900 --> 00:05:43.507 And let me explain what I mean. 00:05:44.067 --> 00:05:46.609 Suppose you and I have an argument. 00:05:46.633 --> 00:05:49.633 You believe a proposition, P, and I don't. 00:05:50.500 --> 00:05:52.414 And I say, "Well, why do you believe P?" 00:05:52.438 --> 00:05:53.843 And you give me your reasons. 00:05:53.867 --> 00:05:56.243 And I object and say, "Well, what about ...?" 00:05:56.267 --> 00:05:57.776 And you answer my objection. 00:05:57.800 --> 00:06:00.209 And I have a question: "Well, what do you mean? 00:06:00.233 --> 00:06:01.677 How does it apply over here?" 00:06:02.133 --> 00:06:03.776 And you answer my question. 00:06:03.800 --> 00:06:05.509 Now, suppose at the end of the day, 00:06:05.533 --> 00:06:07.643 I've objected, I've questioned, 00:06:07.667 --> 00:06:10.263 I've raised all sorts of counter counter-considerations 00:06:10.287 --> 00:06:13.876 and in every case you've responded to my satisfaction. 00:06:13.900 --> 00:06:16.543 And so at the end of the day, I say, 00:06:16.567 --> 00:06:19.900 "You know what? I guess you're right: P." 00:06:20.500 --> 00:06:22.843 So, I have a new belief. 00:06:22.867 --> 00:06:24.280 And it's not just any belief; 00:06:24.304 --> 00:06:30.600 it's well-articulated, examined -- it's a battle-tested belief. 00:06:31.800 --> 00:06:32.960 Great cognitive gain. 00:06:32.984 --> 00:06:34.339 OK, who won that argument? 00:06:35.600 --> 00:06:39.543 Well, the war metaphor seems to force us into saying you won, 00:06:39.567 --> 00:06:42.276 even though I'm the only one who made any cognitive gain. 00:06:42.300 --> 00:06:45.943 What did you gain, cognitively, from convincing me? 00:06:45.967 --> 00:06:48.943 Sure, you got some pleasure out of it, maybe your ego stroked, 00:06:48.967 --> 00:06:50.943 maybe you get some professional status 00:06:50.967 --> 00:06:53.543 in the field -- "This guy's a good arguer." 00:06:53.567 --> 00:06:56.543 But just from a cognitive point of view, 00:06:56.567 --> 00:06:57.843 who was the winner? 00:06:57.867 --> 00:07:02.676 The war metaphor forces us into thinking that you're the winner and I lost, 00:07:02.700 --> 00:07:04.743 even though I gained. 00:07:04.767 --> 00:07:07.043 And there's something wrong with that picture. 00:07:07.067 --> 00:07:09.776 And that's the picture I really want to change if we can. 00:07:09.800 --> 00:07:13.149 So, how can we find ways 00:07:13.173 --> 00:07:16.733 to make arguments yield something positive? 00:07:17.633 --> 00:07:20.633 What we need is new exit strategies for arguments. 00:07:21.367 --> 00:07:24.243 But we're not going to have new exit strategies for arguments 00:07:24.267 --> 00:07:27.576 until we have new entry approaches to arguments. 00:07:27.600 --> 00:07:30.600 We need to think of new kinds of arguments. 00:07:31.267 --> 00:07:33.843 In order to do that, well -- 00:07:33.867 --> 00:07:35.533 I don't know how to do that. 00:07:36.100 --> 00:07:37.443 That's the bad news. 00:07:37.467 --> 00:07:40.476 The argument-as-war metaphor is just ... it's a monster. 00:07:40.500 --> 00:07:42.895 It's just taken up habitation in our mind, 00:07:42.919 --> 00:07:45.366 and there's no magic bullet that's going to kill it. 00:07:45.390 --> 00:07:48.025 There's no magic wand that's going to make it disappear. 00:07:48.049 --> 00:07:49.309 I don't have an answer. 00:07:49.333 --> 00:07:50.676 But I have some suggestions. 00:07:50.700 --> 00:07:52.633 Here's my suggestion: 00:07:53.700 --> 00:07:55.884 If we want to think of new kinds of arguments, 00:07:55.908 --> 00:07:59.567 what we need to do is think of new kinds of arguers. 00:07:59.900 --> 00:08:01.833 So try this: 00:08:02.767 --> 00:08:07.209 Think of all the roles that people play in arguments. 00:08:07.233 --> 00:08:10.209 There's the proponent and the opponent 00:08:10.233 --> 00:08:12.409 in an adversarial, dialectical argument. 00:08:12.433 --> 00:08:14.576 There's the audience in rhetorical arguments. 00:08:14.600 --> 00:08:16.808 There's the reasoner in arguments as proofs. 00:08:18.767 --> 00:08:20.076 All these different roles. 00:08:20.100 --> 00:08:23.943 Now, can you imagine an argument in which you are the arguer, 00:08:23.967 --> 00:08:27.333 but you're also in the audience, watching yourself argue? 00:08:27.967 --> 00:08:31.009 Can you imagine yourself watching yourself argue, 00:08:31.033 --> 00:08:35.509 losing the argument, and yet still, at the end of the argument, saying, 00:08:35.533 --> 00:08:38.033 "Wow, that was a good argument!" 00:08:39.133 --> 00:08:40.476 Can you do that? 00:08:40.500 --> 00:08:43.808 I think you can, and I think if you can imagine that kind of argument, 00:08:43.832 --> 00:08:47.609 where the loser says to the winner and the audience and the jury can say, 00:08:47.633 --> 00:08:49.576 "Yeah, that was a good argument," 00:08:49.600 --> 00:08:51.458 then you have imagined a good argument. 00:08:51.482 --> 00:08:52.643 And more than that, 00:08:52.667 --> 00:08:54.643 I think you've imagined a good arguer, 00:08:54.667 --> 00:08:59.133 an arguer that's worthy of the kind of arguer you should try to be. 00:08:59.567 --> 00:09:02.343 Now, I lose a lot of arguments. 00:09:02.367 --> 00:09:04.776 It takes practice to become a good arguer, 00:09:04.800 --> 00:09:07.956 in the sense of being able to benefit from losing, but fortunately, 00:09:07.980 --> 00:09:10.943 I've had many, many colleagues who have been willing to step up 00:09:10.967 --> 00:09:12.676 and provide that practice for me. 00:09:12.700 --> 00:09:13.875 Thank you. 00:09:13.899 --> 00:09:17.967 (Applause)