For argument's sake | Dan Cohen | TEDxColbyCollege
-
0:06 - 0:10My name is Dan Cohen
and I am an academic, as he said. -
0:10 - 0:13And what that means is that I argue.
-
0:13 - 0:15It's an important part of my life.
-
0:15 - 0:16And I like to argue.
-
0:16 - 0:19And I'm not just an academic,
I'm a philosopher, -
0:19 - 0:22so I like to think that I'm actually
pretty good at arguing. -
0:22 - 0:25But I also like to think
a lot about arguing. -
0:25 - 0:29And in thinking about arguing,
I've come across some puzzles. -
0:29 - 0:31And one of the puzzles is that,
-
0:31 - 0:34as I've been thinking
about arguing over the years - -
0:34 - 0:36and it's been decades now -
-
0:36 - 0:37I've gotten better at arguing.
-
0:38 - 0:41But the more that I argue
and the better I get at arguing, -
0:41 - 0:43the more that I lose.
-
0:43 - 0:45And that's a puzzle.
-
0:45 - 0:47And the other puzzle
is that I'm actually okay with that. -
0:48 - 0:50Why is it that I'm okay with losing
-
0:50 - 0:53and why is it that I think good arguers
are actually better at losing? -
0:53 - 0:55Well, there are some other puzzles.
-
0:55 - 0:57One is: why do we argue?
-
0:57 - 0:59Who benefits from arguments?
-
0:59 - 1:02When I think about arguments,
I'm talking about - -
1:02 - 1:05let's call them academic arguments
or cognitive arguments - -
1:05 - 1:07where something cognitive is at stake:
-
1:07 - 1:09Is this proposition true?
Is this theory a good theory? -
1:09 - 1:13Is this a viable interpretation
of the data or the text? And so on. -
1:14 - 1:17I'm not interested really in arguments
about whose turn it is to do the dishes -
1:17 - 1:19or who has to take out the garbage.
-
1:19 - 1:21Yeah, we have those arguments, too.
-
1:21 - 1:24I tend to win those arguments,
because I know the tricks. -
1:24 - 1:26But those aren't the important arguments.
-
1:26 - 1:28I'm interested in academic arguments,
-
1:28 - 1:30and here are the things that puzzle me.
-
1:31 - 1:34First, what do good arguers win
when they win an argument? -
1:35 - 1:37What do I win if I manage to convince you
-
1:39 - 1:41that concept of the things
in themselvesis really incoherent? -
1:42 - 1:44What do I win if I convinced you
-
1:44 - 1:47that utilitarianism isn't really
the right framework -
1:47 - 1:48for thinking about ethical theories?
-
1:48 - 1:50What do we win when we win an argument?
-
1:52 - 1:53Even before that,
-
1:53 - 1:55what does it matter to me
-
1:55 - 1:58whether you have this idea
that Kant's theory works -
1:58 - 2:01or Mill is the right ethicist to follow?
-
2:01 - 2:02It's no skin off my back
-
2:02 - 2:05whether you think functionalism
is a viable theory of mind. -
2:06 - 2:08So why do we even try to argue?
-
2:08 - 2:10Why do we try to convince other people
-
2:10 - 2:12to believe things
they don't want to believe, -
2:12 - 2:14and is that even a nice thing to do?
-
2:14 - 2:16Is that a nice way to treat
another human being, -
2:16 - 2:19try and make them think something
they don't want to think? -
2:19 - 2:24Well, my answer is going to make reference
to three models for arguments. -
2:24 - 2:27The first model - let's call it
the dialectical model - -
2:27 - 2:30is we think of arguments as war;
you know what that's like - -
2:30 - 2:33a lot of screaming and shouting
and winning and losing. -
2:33 - 2:35Well, you know how that works.
-
2:35 - 2:38That's not a very helpful
model for arguing, -
2:38 - 2:40but it's a pretty common
and entrenched model for arguing. -
2:40 - 2:44But there's a second model for arguing:
arguments as proofs. -
2:44 - 2:46Think of a mathematician's argument.
-
2:46 - 2:49Here's my argument.
Does it work? Is it any good? -
2:49 - 2:53Are the premises warranted?
Are the inferences valid? -
2:53 - 2:56Does the conclusion follow
from the premises? -
2:56 - 2:58No opposition, no adversariality -
-
2:58 - 3:04not necessarily any arguing
in the adversarial sense. -
3:04 - 3:06But there's a third model to keep in mind
-
3:06 - 3:08that I think is going to be very helpful,
-
3:08 - 3:13and that is arguments as performances,
arguments in front of an audience. -
3:15 - 3:18We can think of a politician
trying to present a position, -
3:18 - 3:20trying to convince
the audience of something. -
3:20 - 3:24But there's another twist on this model
that I really think is important; -
3:25 - 3:29namely, that when we argue
before an audience, -
3:29 - 3:33sometimes the audience has
a more participatory role in the argument; -
3:33 - 3:37that is, arguments are also
[performances] in front of juries, -
3:37 - 3:40who make a judgment and decide the case.
-
3:40 - 3:43That's really one of the models
I want to keep in mind. -
3:43 - 3:45Let's call this the rhetorical model,
-
3:45 - 3:49where you have to tailor your argument
to the audience at hand. -
3:49 - 3:52You know, presenting a sound, well-argued,
-
3:52 - 3:55tight argument in English
before a francophone audience -
3:55 - 3:57just isn't going to work.
-
3:57 - 4:01So we have these models -
argument as war, argument as proof -
4:01 - 4:03and argument as performance.
-
4:04 - 4:07Of those three, the argument as war
is the dominant one. -
4:09 - 4:12It dominates how we talk about arguments,
-
4:12 - 4:14it dominates how we think about arguments,
-
4:14 - 4:17and because of that,
it shapes how we argue, -
4:17 - 4:19our actual conduct in arguments.
-
4:19 - 4:20Now, when we talk about arguments,
-
4:20 - 4:22we talk in a very militaristic language.
-
4:22 - 4:26We want strong arguments,
arguments that have a lot of punch, -
4:26 - 4:27arguments that are right on target.
-
4:27 - 4:31We want to have our defenses up
and our strategies all in order. -
4:31 - 4:33We want killer arguments.
-
4:33 - 4:35That's the kind of argument we want.
-
4:36 - 4:38It is the dominant way
of thinking about arguments. -
4:38 - 4:40When I'm talking about arguments,
-
4:40 - 4:43that's probably what you thought of,
the adversarial model. -
4:45 - 4:48But the war metaphor,
-
4:48 - 4:50the war paradigm or model
for thinking about arguments, -
4:50 - 4:53has, I think, deforming effects
on how we argue. -
4:54 - 4:57First, it elevates tactics over substance.
-
4:58 - 5:00You can take a class
in logic, argumentation. -
5:00 - 5:01You learn all about the subterfuges
-
5:01 - 5:04that people use to try and win
arguments - the false steps. -
5:05 - 5:09It magnifies the us-versus-them
aspect of it. -
5:09 - 5:13It makes it adversarial; it's polarizing.
-
5:14 - 5:18And the only foreseeable outcomes
for arguments - -
5:18 - 5:20if they are, in fact, verbal warfare,
-
5:20 - 5:25are triumph - glorious triumph -
or abject, ignominious defeat. -
5:25 - 5:27I think those are deforming effects,
-
5:27 - 5:31and worst of all,
the worst aspect of the war argument -
5:31 - 5:34is that it seems to prevent things
like negotiation -
5:34 - 5:39or deliberation or compromise
or collaboration. -
5:39 - 5:43Think about that one - have you
ever entered an argument thinking, -
5:43 - 5:46"Let's see if we can hash something out,
rather than fight it out. -
5:46 - 5:48What can we work out together?"
-
5:48 - 5:50I think the argument-as-war metaphor
-
5:50 - 5:55inhibits those other kinds
of resolutions to argumentation. -
5:56 - 5:58And finally - this is really
the worst thing - -
5:58 - 6:01arguments don't seem to get us
anywhere; they're dead ends. -
6:01 - 6:07They are like roundabouts or traffic jams
or gridlock in conversation. -
6:07 - 6:08We don't get anywhere.
-
6:09 - 6:10And one more thing.
-
6:10 - 6:13And as an educator, this is the one
that really bothers me: -
6:13 - 6:15If argument is war,
-
6:15 - 6:20then there's an implicit equation
of learning with losing. -
6:20 - 6:22And let me explain what I mean.
-
6:22 - 6:25Suppose you and I have an argument.
-
6:25 - 6:28You believe a proposition, P, and I don't.
-
6:29 - 6:31And I say, "Well, why do you believe P?"
-
6:31 - 6:32And you give me your reasons.
-
6:32 - 6:34And I object and say,
"Well, what about ...?" -
6:34 - 6:36And you answer my objection.
-
6:36 - 6:38And I have a question:
"Well, what do you mean? -
6:38 - 6:40How does it apply over here?"
-
6:40 - 6:42And you answer my question.
-
6:43 - 6:45Now, suppose at the end of the day,
-
6:45 - 6:47I've objected, I've questioned,
-
6:47 - 6:49I've raised all sorts of counter
counter-considerations -
6:49 - 6:53and in every case you've responded
to my satisfaction. -
6:53 - 6:56And so at the end of the day, I say,
-
6:56 - 6:59"You know what? I guess you're right: P."
-
7:00 - 7:02So, I have a new belief.
-
7:02 - 7:03And it's not just any belief;
-
7:04 - 7:10it's well-articulated, examined -
it's a battle-tested belief. -
7:11 - 7:12Great cognitive gain.
-
7:12 - 7:14OK, who won that argument?
-
7:15 - 7:19Well, the war metaphor
seems to force us into saying you won, -
7:19 - 7:21even though I'm the only one
who made any cognitive gain. -
7:22 - 7:25What did you gain, cognitively,
from convincing me? -
7:25 - 7:28Sure, you got some pleasure out of it,
maybe your ego stroked, -
7:28 - 7:30maybe you get some professional status
-
7:30 - 7:33in the field -
"This guy's a good arguer." -
7:33 - 7:36But just from a cognitive point of view,
-
7:36 - 7:37who was the winner?
-
7:37 - 7:42The war metaphor forces us into thinking
that you're the winner and I lost, -
7:42 - 7:45even though I gained.
-
7:45 - 7:47And there's something wrong
with that picture. -
7:47 - 7:50And that's the picture
I really want to change if we can. -
7:50 - 7:53So, how can we find ways
-
7:54 - 7:58to make arguments
yield something positive? -
7:59 - 8:02What we need is new
exit strategies for arguments. -
8:03 - 8:05But we're not going to have
new exit strategies for arguments -
8:05 - 8:09until we have new entry
approaches to arguments. -
8:09 - 8:12We need to think
of new kinds of arguments. -
8:12 - 8:15In order to do that, well -
-
8:15 - 8:17I don't know how to do that.
-
8:17 - 8:19That's the bad news.
-
8:19 - 8:22The argument-as-war metaphor
is just ... it's a monster. -
8:22 - 8:24It's just taken up habitation in our mind,
-
8:24 - 8:27and there's no magic bullet
that's going to kill it. -
8:27 - 8:29There's no magic wand
that's going to make it disappear. -
8:29 - 8:31I don't have an answer.
-
8:31 - 8:32But I have some suggestions.
-
8:32 - 8:34Here's my suggestion:
-
8:35 - 8:37If we want to think
of new kinds of arguments, -
8:37 - 8:41what we need to do
is think of new kinds of arguers. -
8:41 - 8:43So try this:
-
8:44 - 8:48Think of all the roles
that people play in arguments. -
8:48 - 8:51There's the proponent and the opponent
-
8:51 - 8:54in an adversarial, dialectical argument.
-
8:54 - 8:56There's the audience
in rhetorical arguments. -
8:56 - 8:58There's the reasoner
in arguments as proofs. -
9:00 - 9:01All these different roles.
-
9:01 - 9:05Now, can you imagine an argument
in which you are the arguer, -
9:06 - 9:09but you're also in the audience,
watching yourself argue? -
9:10 - 9:13Can you imagine yourself
watching yourself argue, -
9:13 - 9:18losing the argument, and yet still,
at the end of the argument, saying, -
9:18 - 9:20"Wow, that was a good argument!"
-
9:21 - 9:22Can you do that?
-
9:22 - 9:26I think you can, and I think
if you can imagine that kind of argument, -
9:26 - 9:30where the loser says to the winner
and the audience and the jury can say, -
9:30 - 9:32"Yeah, that was a good argument,"
-
9:32 - 9:33then you have imagined a good argument.
-
9:33 - 9:35And more than that,
-
9:35 - 9:37I think you've imagined a good arguer,
-
9:37 - 9:41an arguer that's worthy of the kind
of arguer you should try to be. -
9:42 - 9:44Now, I lose a lot of arguments.
-
9:44 - 9:47It takes practice to become a good arguer,
-
9:47 - 9:50in the sense of being able to benefit
from losing, but fortunately, -
9:50 - 9:53I've had many, many colleagues
who have been willing to step up -
9:53 - 9:55and provide that practice for me.
-
9:55 - 9:56Thank you.
-
9:56 - 9:59(Applause)
- Title:
- For argument's sake | Dan Cohen | TEDxColbyCollege
- Description:
-
Why do we argue? To out-reason our opponents, prove them wrong, and, most of all, to win! ... Right? Philosopher Daniel H. Cohen shows how our most common form of argument - a war in which one person must win and the other must lose - misses out on the real benefits of engaging in active disagreement.
This talk was given at a local TEDx event, produced independently of the TED Conferences.
- Video Language:
- English
- Team:
- closed TED
- Project:
- TEDxTalks
- Duration:
- 10:01
Ivana Korom approved English subtitles for For argument's sake | Dan Cohen | TEDxColbyCollege | ||
Ivana Korom accepted English subtitles for For argument's sake | Dan Cohen | TEDxColbyCollege | ||
Ivana Korom edited English subtitles for For argument's sake | Dan Cohen | TEDxColbyCollege | ||
Ivana Korom edited English subtitles for For argument's sake | Dan Cohen | TEDxColbyCollege | ||
Ivana Korom edited English subtitles for For argument's sake | Dan Cohen | TEDxColbyCollege | ||
TED Translators admin edited English subtitles for For argument's sake | Dan Cohen | TEDxColbyCollege | ||
TED Translators admin edited English subtitles for For argument's sake | Dan Cohen | TEDxColbyCollege | ||
TED Translators admin edited English subtitles for For argument's sake | Dan Cohen | TEDxColbyCollege |