Paying Attention to Our Arguments

I am coming around to thinking that we no longer pay enough attention to our arguments. We go with the first loudly expressed idea and defend it without due consideration of that idea. The substance of the idea is lost in all the noise surrounding it.

I know what you are going to say. “But we are in an election year. Nonsense and name calling are normal.”

My concern is that the healthy skepticism that used to circulate with the silliness, appears to be far less common than it used to be. We used to laugh at outlandish claims. Now we become enraged in response, or double down on defending the absurd. 

One does not need to be a full-on cynic to question statements, but those grumpy cynics seem to be the only ones still calling out the goofy ideas.

Back to the Basics of Argument

With the trolls seemingly winning the war of words these days, developing and refining our own complement of tools to navigate this swamp of illogic becomes another of those adult activities we need to do – but would really rather not.

One does not need to be confrontational or exceptionally clever to compete. Returning to a few basics of critical thinking should work. Some may know this ability by its more familiar name, “common sense”.

I have written about evaluating research and understanding how science actually works. Many recent interpretations of science, full of absolutes and anger, have been receiving way too much press. The concept of science as a verb continues to be the most accurate, even though it is not currently voiced loudly.

Human judgment, as fallible as it may be, does have a codified structure process of logic. Any statement of “fact” is supported by “evidence”. 

Simple.

Ideas that do not follow this structure are therefore opinions, and there are lots of those. Fun but lacking the weight of an actual argument.

Evaluation of Arguments

For all of the insanity of graduate studies, one nugget of wisdom arrived on a day in which our instructor was especially peeved about our class’s performance on recent tests. His anger was apparent, though channeled. He silently wrote on the board: 

RTQ

UTQ

ATQ

After a period of silence, one brave soul ventured the question, “What does that mean?” Medical School is full of acronyms (we were all compendiums of literally hundreds of letter combinations at this point in our education), but none of us had a clue about these.

In a measured tone, the professor replied:

Read The Question

Understand The Question

Answer The Question

As an added emphasis, he indicated that we could insert another letter into the last entry to make it UTFQ, but he did not want to offend by vocalizing the profanity. 

But you get the idea. Take any question, or statement, and break it down to the essentials. Forget emotions and threats. Figure out what is being asked or stated. Submit it to our common sense, then respond accordingly.

If something sounds sloppy or silly, it is.

 Just because the troll is trying to elicit a response does not mean that a response is required. The power lives in our response.

The Trolls Are Not Really Winning

Playing with words to make them sound important is one of the oldest tricks in the book. (Like I said, this is an election year.) Managing the information coming at us in such large numbers is daunting at times, but filtering can be easy.

Sounding important is not enough. No evidence to support the threat? Next statement please. When you do have some reliable evidence, come on back. I will be happy to evaluate and see if it is of use.

And that is the crux of the matter. We, the consumers of information, are the ones truly in charge. The spin that you are somehow incapable of understanding or doing something without the direction from others is the first and the biggest lie.

We should know a snow job when we hear it, but the propaganda has been coming at us fast and furious for a number of years now. Some have started to believe.

Checking Reality

I would like to think better of people but lately their performances have been lacking. Inconsistent, confused, conflicted communications indicate that the speaker is inconsistent, confused, and conflicted. Once again, this is not a judgment of being good or bad. It is an evaluation of the argument being presented. 

Nothing more. Nothing less.

We are challenged with the choice to listen and engage another person or group’s information – or not. The power is with us, the listeners, not the speaker. We get to evaluate the “scientific”, political, ideological, or any other information. Response is based upon decision making of our own.

Sometimes no response is the response. We can choose to not stay in an argument. And that, my friends, is pretty powerful.

“The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.”― John Kenneth Galbraith