On Debate, pt. II
January 2nd, 2007 by 
drunkentune
At present game theory has, in my opinion, two important uses, neither of them related to games nor to conflict directly. First, game theory stimulates us to think about conflict in a novel way. Second, game theory leads to some genuine impasses, that is, to situations where its axiomatic base is shown to be insufficient for dealing even theoretically with certain types of conflict situations. … Thus, the impact is made on our thinking process themselves, rather than on the actual content of our knowledge.†(Anatol Rapaport, Fights, Games, and Debates, p. 242)
In November I gave a brief overview of Rapoport’s process to ‘win’ a debate, titled On Debate. While I agree with the procedure, there may be some inherent difficulties in applying these principals. As shown in the comments section numerous times, we must implicitly assume that both parties wish to resolve the conflict; and we must explicitly assume that both parties have a similar psyche, that of rational thought: that is, an attempt to attain the best possible outcome. Otherwise, you have the beginnings of the Fight. Agreements based on mutual understanding and conviction from both parties are sometimes quite difficult to come by, but it must be assumed that while at Philaletheia, we wish to prevent the Fight.
The emphasis of [Rapator’s debate] is on problem-solving or problem-reduction rather than persuasion; on mutually satisfactory resolutions of differences rather than victory for one party. (Herbert Simons, “Toward a New Rhetoric.” Contemporary Theories of Rhetoric: Selected Readings.)
Chess is an excellent metaphor for debate. Both sides are in conflict, where each move has a counter-move under the shared assumption that both wish to reach checkmate, at which point the game ends.
Yet, what if the assumptions vary greatly? Rapaport names two confrontational styles: that of debate, and of the Fight. The method of debate is to the opponent’s argument is to assume that you are responding as an objective observer, weighing the data and evidence as an impartial actor; the method of the Fight is to wipe out the opponent, where rational discussion is of no use because there is no dialogue. A chess game becomes a shouting match when one side drops the rules and removes his oponent’s pieces at whim, or decides that the loss of his King is not defeat. To those that assume the Fight from the beginning, it is essentially one-sided, but the debater will soon give up, and leave behind the promotion of mutual cooperation to garb himself in rhetoric.
Posted in cooperation, how to dialogue | 
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:07 am
Which is obviously bullshit. There is no such thing as an impartial actor.
In fact, I suspect that a person must be partial in order to *act*, because there must be emotion to drive the action.
My question is: how do we have productive discussion while also acknowledging that everyone is stuck with their worldview and biases?
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Matthew,
It is bullshit that we can, but read closely: we must assume that we wish to act and judge impartially. If we do wish so, we will attempt to do so, which is far better (at least to me) than assuming that we wish to argue from the Fight’s position.
January 3rd, 2007 at 6:32 pm
If human beings are incapable of being impartial or objective, it means that it is difficult for us to learn new information.
If we are incapable of learning new information, we cease to be able to describe ourselves as intelligent as one of the defining aspects of intelligence is the capacity to learn.
If, an individual has a worldview where they believe they already know everything; that all the questions have been answered, they essentially are placing themselves in an intellectual deep-freeze.
For instance, if we automatically disregard information which conflicts with either our present worldview, or our preconcieved positions, without attempting to assess their validity or veracity; we doom ourselves to intellectual stasis.
When I think of this intellectual stasis, I am reminded of the joy that many scientists feel when a pet theory/hypothesis is successfully argued against.
The quest for truth should, and has to be larger than the individual’s ego. This is why scientific knowledge increases. There is a willingness in the scientific community to be proven wrong.
Of course, with so much money riding on grants, patents and copyrights, it can be a financially painful experience to admit that a procedure, a new drug, a new technique is wrong or flawed.
But scientific thought and knowledge progresses mainly because it isn’t dogmatic or doctrinal in the way that religious beliefs can be.
There is always the opportunity to provide evidence to invalidate science. The scientific theories which remain do so because of this process not in spite of it.
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:52 pm
You’ve presented the best possible scientific attitude against the worst possible religious attitude.
January 4th, 2007 at 4:21 am
RE ben
Science that ceases to produce consistent and relisble results doesn’t stand the test of time. Eventually it is exposed, invalidated or tweaked so that it provides demonstrable results.
The same cannot be said of religious beliefs.
January 4th, 2007 at 8:14 am
The Holidays led to a lengthy absence from this blog and most online activity for me and I’ve spent that last couple of days catching up reading comments, etc. All I can say is ouch. It probably isn’t productive to disect what happened, but I’ve noticed this: comments have lessened and so have our hits.
Perhaps our statements about our original intents caused people to hope. Some thought it couldn’t be done and it would degrade into the same useless back-and-forth with someone eventually taking their ball and going home. But I think others wished, just for once, this would be different. That people would listen, find common ground, and move forward. I still hold to that hope.
If I were to talk about the game I am playing here, I would say I’m playing a cooperative rather than competitive game. Competitive games are intended to inspire excellence using motivations of fear of humiliation and lust for dominance. That, I believe, already exsists between atheists and believers, but I do not care to join in such a game.
For the first time I played a cooperative game over break with my wife and parents. It was a strange Sudoku game where we worked as a team to beat the clock. My mother, who is very intelligent but does not like to be rushed, could play along with the rest of us because there was no humiliation waiting for her at the end of the game. It was an experience providential timed, and I think it reinforced what this dialogue is all about for me: comprehension in all things, cooperation in most things, and synthesis wherever possible.
January 4th, 2007 at 8:41 am
RE soulster
In line with the motive and intent of this blog, I will try to modify my comments to that of cooperation rather than competition.
You have been a most understanding host and regardless of the occasional minor fracas, I think that the experience of this blog is a worthwhile one.
January 4th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Well yes, that seems possible. It avoids the claim to objectivity that I was so appalled with, and substitutes a claim that one is attempting to be objective.
From my perspective, he claim that one is objective is simply a prettied up version of the claim, “My position is objectively right.” But the claim that one is *attempting* to be objective is a white flag that says, “I’m capable of supposing that other people might actually have valuable things to say.”
January 4th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
“comments have lessened and so have our hits. ”
When the blog first started, when Dave Armstrong first linked to it, I liked to comment, but it got boring for two reasons:
1. Posts (and comments) got longer and longer and less and less to the point.
2. I often found that after I (or others) commented on a topic, that the re-comments wouldn’t have much to do with what was said: a few poorly worded phrases would get jumped, the main point would be skipped, and then the whole thing would quickly devolve to tangents, boiler-plate monologues, and potshots.
Combine that with the “hey we’re just being objective here, unlike you” attitude from some of the regulars, and it just becomes not-fun.
January 4th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
“The same cannot be said of religious beliefs. ”
Nor can the same strictly be said of philosophy, but that doesn’t invalidate philosophy, nor does your critique invalidate religion, because philosophy and religion don’t wholly come under the same categories as the phenomena explored and described by the scientific method.
Furthermore, religious thought is developed and elaborated/simplified over time to face the challenges of the day.
Have you read any theological texts? “Introduction to Christianity” by Joseph Ratzinger (aka Pope Benedict) is more interesting than you might think.
And, so, again, like I said, and which you didn’t really address: you place the best possible scientific attitude against the worst possible religous attitude–but your comparison doesn’t really say anything about religion or science.
Nor does it really say anything about the subject of the original post: Fight-style versus Dialogue-style debate attitudes.
In fact, this little exchange sort of encapsulates the problems that I was talking about in my last post. Talking-past. Non-sequitur monologues. Potshots.
Here’s a question: With such wildly different assumptions about the nature of the universe, on what subjects can we fruitfully dialogue? Are we, any of us, sure that we are not engaged in a Fight-style debate? If so, how can one be sure?
January 4th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Hi soulster,
I’m leaving this blog (yes I am, despite my lengthy posts today!), precisely because I feel that drunkentune and beepbeep have expressly contradicted the laudable goals you set out above.
They have consistently called theists names and implied that they are abnormal, gullible, stupid, and mentally ill. This is “cooperative?”
Some (perhaps even you yourself) may think that I am in the merely “competitive” mode in some negative sense of that concept. But, rightly-understood, this is a gross, simplistic caricature of my approach, which is one of dialogue building upon common ground. I’ve written about it at length and for years. There is no mystery as to my approach to dialogue with others of different persuasions.
The problem I ran across here is that drunken and beepbeep consistently refuse to accept common ground between Christians and atheists. They imply we are fundamentally irrational and anti-scientific. Proof is everywhere, and unnecessary for me to provide.
Now, such an “us vs. them” attitude is the very antithesis of finding “common ground.” I have long maintained that atheists and Christians can find a lot of common ground in moral issues, and also that we can meet on the playing-field of logic and science.
I am saying that both atheists and Christians (i.e., the best and most thoughtful respresentatives in both camps) can do both science and logic together, by starting with commonly-held premises.
drunken and beepbeep deny this. They claim that our starting-point is irrational faith and gullibility (with faith butchered and not even understood in its definition). I, on the other hand, have argued that both sides start with unproven axioms, so that we are all in the same epistemological boat.
That fosters intellectual humility and mutual respect, but the opposing view fosters condescension and always regarding Christians as inferior. Hence, good dialogue is an impossibility.
Nor do I think that “competition” is a bad thing in and of itself, and in antithesis to “cooperation.” I think the proper way to look at it is to seek after mutual respect by acknowledging common ground and the willingness of both sides to seek truth and care about it.
With that background, one can vigorously debate competing ideas without acrimony, just as occurs in philosophy and science (and in a different way in, e.g., economics and sports). The cooperation is methodological and in the context of mutual respect, but the competition of ideas is the really exciting thing. The competition brings energy and motivation. But it need not be with a “superior-subordinate” mentality. It can be completely friendly.
Indeed, most of my 360 + posted dialogues were with friendly opponents. But sometimes one runs across people who insist on being insulting and condescending. That wrecks dialogue.
“Competition” or simply believing strongly in, and defending ideas is not the problem; certain personalities or approaches that misunderstand the nature of both dialogue and epistemology (as well as particular dialogue partners whom they regard as “enemies” to be smashed) are causing the problem. It’s a “human-specific” difficulty, in other words, not a “methodology-specific” one.
I was called all sorts of names and various snide insinuations were made about my supposed opinions and attitudes before I got fed up and described drunkentune as a “pompous, condescending ass.”
The description accurately portrays how he treated me, as far as I was (and am) concerned. I don’t see how anyone could doubt that he has been condescending and insulting. He simply couldn’t take my criticisms and so lashed out.
If my reaction is so terrible and indefensible, then certainly the many insults of drunken and beepbeep prior to my calling a spade a spade (as I see it) are equally blameworthy.
But I’m outta here, whatever happens. If someone thinks I am or was the cause of this thing breaking down, you’ll see whether that is true or not after I leave. But drunken is also quite capable of treating different people in different ways. He has approached me like I am a moron and an imbecile, but he doesn’t approach you that way. This happens in life; different temperaments clash. You two get along; he and I don’t.
If he treats people more like you, this thing can still work as planned, but whenever he treats people like he has myself, it won’t work (so I would predict). So it comes down to drunken’s almost “divided” (elsewhere I described it [quite justifiably, IMO] as “schizoid”) personality and methodology.
Farewell. If anyone wants to interact with recent comments of mine on cosmology, they are welcome to do so on my blog, but I will ignore drunken and beepbeep there, for reasons outlined above. I have an extreme lack of patience for insulting “discussion.” Life is too short to ruin something as fun and exciting as good intellectual discussion, with a descent into schoolyard polemics and posturing.
Others are, of course, free and encouraged to interact with them on my blog as they wish, per my belief in free speech, which includes the “right” to ignore people one deems not worth interacting with, also.
January 4th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Tsk tsk. It appears that Dave’s sense of elitism has got the better of him. What would Jesus say?
January 4th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
beepbeepitsme:
With all due respect, I’d like to point you to your own words in comment 7.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Re ben:
How is asking what jesus would say disrespectful?
RE: “Others are, of course, free and encouraged to interact with them on my blog as they wish, per my belief in free speech, which includes the “right†to ignore people one deems not worth interacting with, also.”
Big of Dave to allow other people to speak to me.
And “the “right†to ignore people one deems not worth interacting with, also.” - smacks of elitism to me.
Does anyone really think that jesus (supposing such a person existed), was an elitist? If so, then my knowledge of the supposed attributes of jesus must differ considerably from many.
Everything will be made good of course, as Dave has said he is going to pray for us.
Unfortunately, what dave still doesn’t understand is that offering to pray for an atheist is like offering to hop up and down on one leg for them.
It may make the person doing the hopping feel good about themselves, but it doesn’t achieve anything and is probably only slightly amusing to the one being “hopped for.”
January 5th, 2007 at 12:19 am
Jesus was very clear about obstinate people who don’t want to listen, only mock. He instructed his disciples to “shake the dust off your feet” when leaving their house, and not to “cast pearls before swine.” Paul the apostle also makes many statements about avoiding foolish controversies and stupid conversations. This is all entirely biblical. There is a tiome to stop talking when a person shows himself or herself even sub-civil.
As for prayer, these are perhaps the most ridiculous statements you have made. Christians pray. It matters not a hill of beans if an atheist disbelieves in prayer or not. So what? We pray for people because we think it has (or may have, God willing) an effect.
You mock my policy of free speech for everyone on my blog, including the right not to speak to everyone and to be selective. Yet in your last comment there you made the stupid remark that I might delete your comment. So I’m damned if I do, damned if I don’t.
You don’t like me praying for you or drunkemtune? Okay, let’s do it your way: I hate your guts, hope you rot and burn in hell, and would never pray for you.
Do you like that better? Is that a great Christian witness? The only trouble is that it doesn’t contain one whit of truth. I don’t hate you; I don’t hate anyone. I only desire what’s best for you. I don’t want you or anyone to go to hell (though you stated that I did do so on drunken’s blog, which is a damnable lie), and I pray for people out of love.
You don’t like that? too bad. It’s a free country. Get used to Christians praying. You don’t care for me personally? Then ignore me rather than going spastic every tie I say something you don’t happen to agree with.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:40 am
Tsk Tsk Dave .. Jesus isn’t happy with you mate.
January 5th, 2007 at 9:59 am
ben:
Thanks for giving some honest feedback. For my part, I’ll attempt to make your remarks into objectives for my activity in the posts and comments. In my experience in conflict resolution and mediation, the hardest thing is to get people talkingly directly and deeply. That’s what I want here. Direct and deep dialogue.
Dave:
Not sure if you’re still sround or not, but thanks for the information on the origins of the universe stuff and various other interesting sources you’ve provided. When I spoke above about my intentions, I was not speaking about anyone other than myself, there was no intended criticism. I can claim no responsibility here for controlling anyone other than me. It is wholly within my power to overlook statements that might be offensive, misunderstandings, and even cracks at my character, should they occur.
I will take your scriptural admonitions into consideration, but perhaps I see the context a little differently. I am not here to preach the Gospel, so Jesus’ instructions about wiping off the dust wouldn’t apply. I preach the Gospel elsewhere which is openly accessible to the masses on the internet, and anyone on this blog hopefully feels free to approach me there or via email should they have the interest. Jesus spent a significant amount of time speaking to those who were skeptical, and even some time speaking to those who were enemies, even murderously opposed to him. I do not think this crowd the latter, while they may be the former. As long as I do not neglect the mission with my faith community, I think it Christ-like for me to continue speaking here. I have many other venues in my life where I am called to take the Gospel, and there I do search for those who will recieve it and me with hospitality as in Luke 10. Where I am not offered hospitality, I move on. Nor am I offering up many of my pearls here — those things most precious to me — so I have little fear of loosing them to those who do not value them. The few I have offered have been accepted gently, namely pearls of wanting to listen, to speak, to be real, to seek truth, and do something worthwhile. Godspeed on your cyberjourneys.
January 5th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Hi soulster,
I wanted to comment on something you wrote, in order to encourage you:
The Holidays led to a lengthy absence from this blog and most online activity for me and I’ve spent that last couple of days catching up reading comments, etc. All I can say is ouch. It probably isn’t productive to disect what happened, but I’ve noticed this: comments have lessened and so have our hits.
Just as you have been absent during the holidays, so have many others. Either they were simply celebrating offline, or they were away from work (where many people surf the Internet), or both.
I noticed my hits going way down also, but they are steadily rising again. And discussion was almost nonexistent on my blog for a few weeks there. So it seems to be simply a cyclical drop over the holidays. It could also be more than that both here and on my blog, but I think that probably explains most of the decrease.
I wouldn’t worry about it. If you keep up the quality writing you’ve been doing, and keep pursuing dialogue with the patience and insight that you’ve shown, you’ll have plenty of visitors and feedback.
Whether many other Christians / theists will react as I have and become fed up with certain repeated motifs from our atheist friends remains to be seen. A few others have also expressed thoughts similar to my opinions.
January 6th, 2007 at 12:32 am
Tsk Tsk Dave .. Jesus isn’t happy with you mate.
This is very rude.
You did it in comment #12, then Benny (not me) pointed it out, and now I am pointing it out.
January 6th, 2007 at 2:54 am
RE ben
You obviously have a different idea as to what “very rude” is, to what I have.