Topics Rationality

Question What is the best way to decide between opposing opinions? So many issues are argued from the most extreme positions; there seems to be no middle ground. Such as: atheists vs. Evangelical/Fundamentalists; or the prevalence of sex addicts vs. some expert opinions that there is no such thing as "sex addiction". Thank you if you can accept my question.

Accepted:
September 30, 2010

Comments

Thank you for your good and important question. The extreme and contradictory positions we often hear proposed about difficult issues can make for a lot of confusion, and it's natural to wonder whether there is any rational way to adjudicate such disputes. Now, you asked what is *the* best way to decide between opposing opinions, whereas I don't think that we should assume that there is a unique best way in which to do so. However, I would like to suggest a few strategies that might be helpful.

1. When trying to decide between opposing opinions, take some time to articulate those opinions carefully. You might be surprised how little of an extreme-seeming position is left if you state it in plain English, after subtracting out the shouting and other emotional dimensions.

2. After this articulation, make sure that the opposed opinions are actually responding to the same issue. All too often, disputants twist the question at issue for their own purposes. If this happens, then it raises the question whether the disputants are talking past each other.

3. With each of the opinions that you have now articulated, see whether it tries to *justify* a position, or whether it simply asserts it. If the former, then you might see whether that justification is cogent. Cogency is a matter of good argument, and a great deal of work in philosophy and logic over the centuries has gone into distinguishing ways in which arguments can fail. A good logic textbook will serve as a useful overview of various of the "fallacies" that can make arguments fail.

4. In addition to the cogency of the reasoning in the arguments, you might consider the adequacy of the *premises*, that is the starting points from which the arguments start. Often these premises are dubious, either relying on assumptions that are controversial, or depending on some distortion of the known facts.

5. As you get more practice with the above techniques, I suspect you'll find yourself getting better at detecting the various ways in which arguments can fail to be cogent. In so doing, you may be less likely to be puzzled or mystified by all the warring opinions out there, and more confident in telling the well-supported positions from those that are not.

I hope that you find this useful.

Mitch Green