Jeer Here
A question that comes up again and again is how to respond to people who not only disagree with you, but whose argument seems absurd. If you spend all your time trying to respond to what you think are very bad arguments, you won't have time for serious discussion. But if you ignore them, two bad things can happen: you allow these argument to proliferate, and, of course, you may be shutting out what is a good point (even if it's not entirely correct)--it's possible opposing arguments just seem bad because you're the closeminded one.
I was thinking about this when I read about an incident at an atheists' convention.
There was a bit of unwarranted controversy in Richard Dawkins' talk here at the Global Atheist Convention. In the Q&A at the end, one woman got the microphone, declared that she was a believer, announced that she was grateful to a god, and asked the question, "What is DNA? Where did DNA come from?" (and she did not ask in the tone of someone who sincerely wanted an answer to a basic question in biology.) She was loudly but briefly jeered, before Dawkins and the organizers quieted the audience, and then Richard went on to answer the question politely and at length.
Some people felt badly about the audience reaction, and at least one person apologized to her. I don't and wouldn't. I think the response was perfect.
The woman seemed to want to trap Dawkins in what she presumably thought was a very clever question, but was actually naive and a waste of the audience's time. It is good that the audience was not passive, but expressed their opinion of the stupidity of her attempt to sidetrack the conversation, and it is good that the speaker gave her a fair hearing and an honest answer...
At least in this example, a serious argument was forthcoming. But still, what if it had just been jeering, and Dawkins said "your argument is too stupid to take seriously, now sit down"--which is what the audience seemed to be saying.
I believe in erring on the side of more argument, and more civility, but I can still see the atheists saying "this is the nonsense we have to put up with every day our our lives--can't we have at least a little peace and quiet and rationality at our own convention?"
posted by LAGuy @ 12:17 AM
6 Comments:
Its a political crap shoot, by engaging in what you think are bizarre ridiculous arguments, you can permit yourself to be sidetracked or even allow it to gain legitimacy-of course failure to respond can lead to the idea that the point is being avoided through fear (ask John Kerry). If the ultimate aim is persuaion, the way in which an opposing argument is responded to is just as important as the facts marshalled to oppose it.
I don't know what you're referrig to with John Kerry. If you mean the Swift Boat ads, there was a tidal wave of response from every sector of society, from Kerry to all the newspapers, against them. In fact, it was impossible to get the truth out about Kerry from the Swiftboat side since no one would report on his past, which is why they had to pay for ads.
It is very tricky, because for the observer, avoiding answering a difficult question (because the answer works against your position) sounds virtually the same as avoiding answering a stupid question (because you think the answer is self-evident and wastes your time).
But as you say, this is the difficulty in a public forum. In a convention of like-minded individuals, you would think you could avoid having to defend positions, and rather strategize on how to promote your positions among the general public.
But in the public, I think it is never a good idea to dismiss arrogantly any question. Al Gore lost debates with George Bush by seemingly sneering at points he had made. To the listener, if the point made sounds at least plausible, the sneer is taken as a personal offense.
That was quite a debate.
"I've got a lockbox."
"It's fuzzy math. It's fuzzy math."
John Kerry initally ignored the Swiftboaters because he perceived their claims to be ludicrous and in doing so, he ceded the field and gave what he and his side perceived to be crazy partisans a perception of reasonableness to those who never heard of the issue before then.
George Bush perpetually ignored the Democrats because he perceived their claims to be ludicrous and in doing so, he ceded the field and gave what he and his side perceived to be crazy partisans a perception of reasonableness to those who never heard of the issue before then.
Post a Comment
<< Home