[ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures

[Stefano Vaj]

On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 7:19 AM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

> I'm just thinking of ordinary debates. If you and I disagree
> on something, don't we necessarily try to find statements
> that the other is forced to agree with, that lead him or her
> towards our way of thinking?


Yes, exactly. Arguments ad personam are always more compelling than
arguments ad rem. We look for some common ground, identify it, and then try
to show that our opponent's conclusions are inconsistent with it.

>
>
> I like to think that I'm thinking that I'm merely in a two-person
> conversation, but of course I have noticed that my style does
> change on account of our audience. But here, are you implying
> that your adversary will be lying when he denies you a "common
> ground" that in his heart he does readily accept?


No. I mean that he may be reluctant to refuse a common ground that *is*
common to most of our public (say, the jurors, the TV spectators to a
political debate, the other guests at a sitting dinner), thus offering you
leverage, or that if he does deny it he corners himself in a position that
may be less popular or acceptable ("science is per se sinful") than his
original stance may have been ("stem cell research should be regulated").

I could never stand the very idea of "debate" in high school, it seemed
> somehow very dishonest and wicked to argue a point
> that you did not believe.
>

Funnily enough, I have heard of such debating matches, Athenian
sophist-style, in US high schools, but the very concept is totally unknown
of in Europe, including in the training of practising lawyers! But perhaps
it is just that all that has become second nature for us, so we need not
being educated in it... :-)

Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080814/39cead91/attachment.html>