What’s Wrong With Debate? A Scientist’s View

May 14th, 2009

Let me go on   the record for finally appreciating that my super elite college prep high school didn’t have debate.   I heard a rumor that it was because the headmaster didn’t think it appropriate for students to argue positions they didn’t believe in.

Let me state this clearly for the record: Debate is a ridiculous way of reaching the truth.

We should reform or remove this practice and its exaltation from our society.

If you know anyone who has been successful at formal debate, perhaps you understand what I’m about to say.   I have had less direct experience with it, so I have been slower to reach this conclusion, but I feel sure of it now.   Winning at debate has very little to do with having the winning side of an issue.

What happens in Presidential debates, arguably the most common and popular debates seen in the United States?   They seem to be won or lost on things like sighs, expectations preceding a debate, and how comfortable someone seems.   Rarely is anyone taken much to task for lying (they’re given passes for misspeaking), not being responsive, or otherwise not actually making their points convincingly.

In competitive debate, debaters are rewarded for the number of arguments they can make and how well they can rebut their opponents arguments in a high pressure, time-constrained situation.

This is, again, a ridiculous way of reaching a conclusion.

This is how things operate on TV and in law, two realms where the truth is less important than perception.

The best method of reaching reliable conclusions about the truth is science.   Science eschews debate, for the most part, only on rare occasion engaging in public debate for education or entertainment, NEVER to reach the truth.

Science is about discovering the truth, or our best understanding of it.   It is a slow, methodical process, that does not worry about time limits or declaring an absolute winner immediately after an argument has been produced.   Individual scientists may care about winning, but the field does not.   The field cares about the right answer.

Lawyers care about swaying people to their point of view, not about the truth, unless they happen to be on the right side of it.   Same way with politicians, and religion.   Lawyers, politicians, and the religious may all believe they have the truth on their side, but they pretty much never reach that conclusion based on a fair hearing of the facts and arguments.   Scientists are the exception.

So, if a topic is one that can be addressed by science, debate should be forbidden.   Not because there might be controversy, but simply because debate cannot resolve the controversy.   The best speaker, actor, or politician will win the day regardless of the strength of their position.   If the strength of the positions are so uneven that this is not so, why have a debate?   (I note the exception of topics where people are irrationally biased/stupid, e.g., creationism.)

If the topic is not amenable to science, I don’t really care.   Do you?   How many people are swayed by some previously unknown factoid, presented with strong bias, regarding abortion, free speech, guns, marital relations, gay marriage, or any other social issue?   Almost all of these, and related topics, are non-issues.   Someone’s personal beliefs and philosophies lead them to a position; fundamental core values are in disagreement.   It shocks me, as a scientist, to hear people throw out argument after argument they don’t really believe, trying to convince that tiny percentage of middle-of-the-road undecideds on these topics.     They throw the kitchen sink at every topic trying to find any argument that sticks, arguments that played no role in how they themselves reached their conclusions.

Now, if you’re preparing for a career in law or politics, by all means join the debate team.   I will respect the craft, but little more, along with my   fellow citizens who hold lawyers and politicians in such high esteem.   (Why don’t sharks eat lawyers?   Professional courtesy.)   The reason, in my opinion, is not only because debate is a false activity, but because it is often applied to serious topics that are open to science.   Claim that vouchers will result in better educational outcomes?   Well, let’s do the experiment and see.   One side shouldn’t say absolutely it will work while the other denies it.   We can test it out.   Likewise with abstinence-only sex education.   It’s a failure, not meeting program goals, so let’s cancel it and stop listening to wishful thinking.   Etc.   Too many topics can be solved, but debate makes us think that’s not true, or that the solution is talking not testing.

So next time I hear a call for debate, the first thing I will think is what is this person trying to hide?   Or trying to push?   Those calling for debate rarely want the truth.   They want a chance to convince people without having to resort to hard work.   They’re not serious people, although they may be skilled.

In this soundbite culture, I appreciate more and more my private high school that sure could have been a different kind of school given how many of the alumni went on to law and politics.

Share/Bookmark

Tags: , ,

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.