Arguing is Wrong?

For time immemorial, it has been a lazy and fallacious argument to rebutt with the terms that the argument itself is not worthy of the products expected.

Today, the lazy arguer in public discourse will defer upon recognition of impending defeat that the nature of the argument is not worth continuing.

In raw terms, a person will stop the argument stating that "You are getting aggressive.", "You are being argumentative.", "You are being negative.", "You are denigrating my feelings or beliefs." etc.

This is a cheap way to end one's involvement in a rational argument. Like kicking the chess board when you realise you are about to lose, or picking up the ball and walking home because you are losing the game.

Samuel Johnson said "Prejudice, not being formed by reason, cannot be argued away through reason."

This explains some of the reason for arguments being ceased by the losing side.

Today, it is common place due to Political Correctness that an argument will be ceased by one side based on the negative nature of the argument. PC reminds us that an argument must never offend one side.

Of course, the most important of all arguments will likely come with prejudice, a dearly held belief, a sensitive ego and the potential to offend. This fact of the sensitivity some views hold is the very reason they need to be argued out. Things that hold none of these sensitivities are not worth arguing about.

The questioning of beliefs, of arguments, of claims of fact, demand by their very nature a critical examination to confirm or deny the weight of their claims to truth, certainty or importance.

If the findings of the examination look set to erode the sensitivities of one side, that side will cut the argument short. Thus the issue is not progressed. Scientific discovery could not have proceeded with this sensitivity and behaviour.

David Hume had a simple test: does it contain not number nor tautology nor statement of some fact? Commit it then to the flames.

Hume cuts off at the knees anything claimed that cannot be tested by logic or empirical verification.

Anything else is likely nonsense. Hume is interested in what can be known, what is true, what is certain or verifiable.

However, an argument often seeks more than the truth. There are reasons beyond truth to argue. An argument is used to convince, to persuade, to correct, by identifying more information, a flaw in reasoning or method, an inconsistency. An argument can enumerate the logic of an argument and why it is held, why it was concluded, from where it derived.

This is why argument with even seemingly irrational persons is so important.

Today, we are taught not to argue. Today argument is a dirty word and no sooner has it begun than one side calls for it to end. This is an effect of PC. The argument by its nature will require the dismantling of close-held beliefs, of ego. Feelings will be hurt. Beliefs will be attacked. Ego will be exposed and weakened.

We all need to grow a thicker skin and stand up for what we argue, rather than folding like a cheap suit when we are criticised rationally.

All argument is good. All argument and dispute and disagreement is necessary to progress beyond the caveman.

The costs of arguing are outweighed by the benefits of enlightened, unmolested exchange of reasoning.

We are our own worst critics, so it is left to others to point out our shortcomings in reasoning.

This can only happen in argument, no matter how much it hurts.