Search for Truth

I enjoy hearing viewpoints on social issues that differ from my own. However, there are a few exceptions. I want the goal, on both sides, to be a search for truth. There will be times when reasonable people will fail to agree on what the truth is. But as long as all sides have the same goal in mind, we ought to be able to have a good discussion.

The first unfair tactic that is sometimes taken is the reliance on faith-based evidence. A topic cannot be fairly debated if one side claims to know God’s opinion on the subject. The Bible, the Koran, the Talmud or any other holy book cannot be cited as evidence in support of an opinion. Belief in any religion relies on faith, not evidence; therefore the tenets of any religion are not acceptable as evidence in the debate of social issues.

Bullying tactics are unacceptable in a search for truth. These are a staple of right wing talk radio. They include such pearls as “What part of illegal don’t you understand”, and “God didn’t create Adam and Steve”. The second one might be thought to fall under the first unfair tactic, but I believe more correctly belongs here. To have a fair discussion of an issue, you must give due respect to the loyal opposition. As long as they are basing their arguments on evidence and logic, their opinions have merit and deserve consideration.

Another unfair tactic is a reliance on dogma. This is similar to the reliance on faith-based evidence, except the faulty evidence being introduced is political rather than spiritual. This includes things like quoting Ronald Reagan, or saying “history shows that socialism does not work”. A premise in support of an argument must itself be supportable by facts. The legal objection to such a maneuver is “assumes facts not in evidence”.

And then there is the misstatement of evidence. This includes the flat-out incorrect statement of fact like “one third of the worlds scientists do not believe in global warming”. Care must be taken when a website is cited as evidence. Just because someone says something or it can be found in writing doesn’t make it true. The second kind of misstatement of evidence is intellectual dishonesty. An example of this is citing a poll that says that 80% of Americans are in favor of health care reform. If a pollster phones a sampling of Americans and asks simply “Do you support or oppose health care reform?” such a result may occur. But it is meaningless if those being polled are not presented with the ramifications of their beliefs. If instead the poll question was “Given that your taxes may have to go up to pay for it, do you favor or oppose health care reform?” an entirely different result is likely. The people who word the polls know the difference and are attempting not to discover evidence, but to manufacture it.

Look for these tactics as you read the opinion page, listen to the talking heads on the news, or listen to talk radio. Exercise critical thinking, and remember that the goal must be a search for the truth.