Blog Jones

Catallarchy links to a quote by Benjamin Frankling on arguing:

I made it a rule to forbear all direct contradictions to the sentiments of others, and all positive assertion of my own. I even forbade myself the use of every word or expression in the language that imported a fixed opinion, such as “certainly”, “undoubtedly”, etc. I adopted instead of them “I conceive”, “I apprehend”, or “I imagine” a thing to be so or so; or “so it appears to me at present”.

When another asserted something that I thought an error, I denied myself the pleasure of contradicting him abruptly, and of showing him immediately some absurdity in his proposition. In answering I began by observing that in certain cases or circumstances his opinion would be right, but in the present case there appeared or semed to me some difference, etc. I soon found the advantage of this change in my manner; the conversations I engaged in went on more pleasantly. The modest way in which I proposed my opinions procured them a readier reception and less contradiction. I had less mortification when I was found to be in the wrong, and I more easily prevailed with others to give up their mistakes and join with me when I happened to be in the right.

– Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin

It seems like good advice. I’ve noticed in some of my previous posts a tendency to word things too strongly, as in “this is the best ___ ever” or “anyone with good critical thinking skills would see that ___” or whatever. (This sort of writing is likely a by-product of my tendency to blog late at night, as I am doing now.)

Fundamentally, Franklin’s technique admits the possibility of being wrong, which I find is critical to good thinking. If you say that a thing is true and that you’ll accept no argument against it, you run the risk of being proven wrong and being unable to correct yourself later without losing face.

You ought to be very careful what you set in stone.

The other thing Franklin is advocating is respect for the opponents position. I’m glad to see that this has been the general spirit here on this site. To my knowledge, no thread has yet been reduced to a name-calling flame-war, which is unusual for a site that discusses religion, politics, and other controversial issues.

This respect goes hand-in-hand with the previous point: A respect for your opponent’s position is born out of the possibility that you might be wrong, and that he might be right.

On the other hand, even if your position is correct, if you say the opponent is stupid or immoral for holding an opposing opinion, his mind immediately closes to your argument and switches to a defensive posture. Your wisdom will fall on deaf ears.

You don’t win minds by insulting and attacking them, but by reasoning with them.

This entry was posted on Thursday, August 11th, 2005 at 1:20 am and is filed under Language, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.