1
00:00:01,267 --> 00:00:03,933
My name is Dan Cohen
and I am an academic, as he said.

2
00:00:04,500 --> 00:00:07,567
And what that means is that I argue.

3
00:00:07,600 --> 00:00:09,233
It's an important part of my life.

4
00:00:09,267 --> 00:00:10,433
And I like to argue.

5
00:00:10,733 --> 00:00:14,100
And I'm not just an academic,
I'm a philosopher,

6
00:00:14,133 --> 00:00:17,067
so I like to think that I'm actually
pretty good at arguing.

7
00:00:17,100 --> 00:00:19,900
But I also like to think
a lot about arguing.

8
00:00:20,367 --> 00:00:23,833
And in thinking about arguing,
I've come across some puzzles.

9
00:00:23,867 --> 00:00:25,767
And one of the puzzles is that,

10
00:00:25,800 --> 00:00:28,333
as I've been thinking
about arguing over the years --

11
00:00:28,367 --> 00:00:29,767
and it's been decades now --

12
00:00:29,800 --> 00:00:31,467
I've gotten better at arguing.

13
00:00:31,500 --> 00:00:35,000
But the more that I argue
and the better I get at arguing,

14
00:00:35,033 --> 00:00:36,333
the more that I lose.

15
00:00:36,967 --> 00:00:38,200
And that's a puzzle.

16
00:00:38,233 --> 00:00:41,100
And the other puzzle
is that I'm actually okay with that.

17
00:00:41,500 --> 00:00:43,333
Why is it that I'm okay with losing

18
00:00:43,367 --> 00:00:46,800
and why is it that I think good arguers
are actually better at losing?

19
00:00:46,833 --> 00:00:48,833
Well, there are some other puzzles.

20
00:00:48,867 --> 00:00:50,733
One is: why do we argue?

21
00:00:50,767 --> 00:00:52,400
Who benefits from arguments?

22
00:00:52,433 --> 00:00:54,767
When I think about arguments,
I'm talking about --

23
00:00:54,800 --> 00:00:57,633
let's call them academic arguments
or cognitive arguments --

24
00:00:57,667 --> 00:00:59,500
where something cognitive is at stake:

25
00:00:59,533 --> 00:01:02,267
Is this proposition true?
Is this theory a good theory?

26
00:01:02,300 --> 00:01:06,767
Is this a viable interpretation
of the data or the text? And so on.

27
00:01:06,800 --> 00:01:10,767
I'm not interested really in arguments
about whose turn it is to do the dishes

28
00:01:10,800 --> 00:01:12,467
or who has to take out the garbage.

29
00:01:12,500 --> 00:01:14,800
Yeah, we have those arguments, too.

30
00:01:14,833 --> 00:01:17,567
I tend to win those arguments,
because I know the tricks.

31
00:01:17,600 --> 00:01:19,567
But those aren't the important arguments.

32
00:01:19,600 --> 00:01:21,367
I'm interested in academic arguments,

33
00:01:21,400 --> 00:01:23,267
and here are the things that puzzle me.

34
00:01:24,667 --> 00:01:27,733
First, what do good arguers win
when they win an argument?

35
00:01:27,767 --> 00:01:30,233
What do I win if I convince you

36
00:01:30,267 --> 00:01:32,700
that utilitarianism isn't really
the right framework

37
00:01:32,733 --> 00:01:34,467
for thinking about ethical theories?

38
00:01:34,500 --> 00:01:36,367
What do we win when we win an argument?

39
00:01:36,400 --> 00:01:37,733
Even before that,

40
00:01:37,767 --> 00:01:39,000
what does it matter to me

41
00:01:39,033 --> 00:01:41,967
whether you have this idea
that Kant's theory works

42
00:01:42,000 --> 00:01:45,167
or Mill is the right ethicist to follow?

43
00:01:45,200 --> 00:01:46,567
It's no skin off my back

44
00:01:46,600 --> 00:01:49,767
whether you think functionalism
is a viable theory of mind.

45
00:01:50,300 --> 00:01:52,333
So why do we even try to argue?

46
00:01:52,367 --> 00:01:54,200
Why do we try to convince other people

47
00:01:54,233 --> 00:01:56,400
to believe things
they don't want to believe,

48
00:01:56,433 --> 00:01:58,200
and is that even a nice thing to do?

49
00:01:58,233 --> 00:02:00,467
Is that a nice way to treat
another human being,

50
00:02:00,500 --> 00:02:03,467
try and make them think something
they don't want to think?

51
00:02:03,500 --> 00:02:08,167
Well, my answer is going to make reference
to three models for arguments.

52
00:02:08,200 --> 00:02:10,933
The first model -- let's call it
the dialectical model --

53
00:02:10,967 --> 00:02:13,867
is we think of arguments as war;
you know what that's like --

54
00:02:13,900 --> 00:02:16,600
a lot of screaming and shouting
and winning and losing.

55
00:02:16,633 --> 00:02:18,767
That's not a very helpful
model for arguing,

56
00:02:18,800 --> 00:02:21,533
but it's a pretty common
and entrenched model for arguing.

57
00:02:21,567 --> 00:02:24,800
But there's a second model for arguing:
arguments as proofs.

58
00:02:24,833 --> 00:02:26,900
Think of a mathematician's argument.

59
00:02:26,933 --> 00:02:29,700
Here's my argument.
Does it work? Is it any good?

60
00:02:29,733 --> 00:02:34,200
Are the premises warranted?
Are the inferences valid?

61
00:02:34,233 --> 00:02:36,767
Does the conclusion follow
from the premises?

62
00:02:36,800 --> 00:02:39,200
No opposition, no adversariality --

63
00:02:39,233 --> 00:02:44,900
not necessarily any arguing
in the adversarial sense.

64
00:02:44,933 --> 00:02:46,900
But there's a third model to keep in mind

65
00:02:46,933 --> 00:02:48,900
that I think is going to be very helpful,

66
00:02:48,933 --> 00:02:53,933
and that is arguments as performances,
arguments in front of an audience.

67
00:02:53,967 --> 00:02:56,900
We can think of a politician
trying to present a position,

68
00:02:56,933 --> 00:02:59,067
trying to convince
the audience of something.

69
00:02:59,100 --> 00:03:02,567
But there's another twist on this model
that I really think is important;

70
00:03:02,600 --> 00:03:06,600
namely, that when we argue
before an audience,

71
00:03:06,633 --> 00:03:10,700
sometimes the audience has
a more participatory role in the argument;

72
00:03:10,733 --> 00:03:15,233
that is, arguments are also
[performances] in front of juries,

73
00:03:15,267 --> 00:03:18,033
who make a judgment and decide the case.

74
00:03:18,067 --> 00:03:19,867
Let's call this the rhetorical model,

75
00:03:19,900 --> 00:03:23,600
where you have to tailor your argument
to the audience at hand.

76
00:03:23,633 --> 00:03:26,267
You know, presenting a sound, well-argued,

77
00:03:26,300 --> 00:03:29,667
tight argument in English
before a francophone audience

78
00:03:29,700 --> 00:03:31,300
just isn't going to work.

79
00:03:31,800 --> 00:03:35,433
So we have these models --
argument as war, argument as proof

80
00:03:35,467 --> 00:03:37,833
and argument as performance.

81
00:03:38,167 --> 00:03:41,933
Of those three, the argument as war
is the dominant one.

82
00:03:42,467 --> 00:03:45,067
It dominates how we talk about arguments,

83
00:03:45,100 --> 00:03:47,133
it dominates how we think about arguments,

84
00:03:47,167 --> 00:03:50,133
and because of that,
it shapes how we argue,

85
00:03:50,167 --> 00:03:51,933
our actual conduct in arguments.

86
00:03:51,967 --> 00:03:53,633
Now, when we talk about arguments,

87
00:03:53,667 --> 00:03:55,633
we talk in a very militaristic language.

88
00:03:55,667 --> 00:03:58,900
We want strong arguments,
arguments that have a lot of punch,

89
00:03:58,933 --> 00:04:00,600
arguments that are right on target.

90
00:04:00,633 --> 00:04:03,800
We want to have our defenses up
and our strategies all in order.

91
00:04:03,833 --> 00:04:06,400
We want killer arguments.

92
00:04:06,433 --> 00:04:08,433
That's the kind of argument we want.

93
00:04:09,200 --> 00:04:11,600
It is the dominant way
of thinking about arguments.

94
00:04:11,633 --> 00:04:13,233
When I'm talking about arguments,

95
00:04:13,267 --> 00:04:16,100
that's probably what you thought of,
the adversarial model.

96
00:04:16,433 --> 00:04:18,933
But the war metaphor,

97
00:04:18,967 --> 00:04:21,700
the war paradigm or model
for thinking about arguments,

98
00:04:21,733 --> 00:04:24,700
has, I think, deforming effects
on how we argue.

99
00:04:25,100 --> 00:04:28,067
First, it elevates tactics over substance.

100
00:04:28,967 --> 00:04:31,100
You can take a class
in logic, argumentation.

101
00:04:31,133 --> 00:04:32,833
You learn all about the subterfuges

102
00:04:32,867 --> 00:04:35,733
that people use to try and win
arguments -- the false steps.

103
00:04:35,767 --> 00:04:38,933
It magnifies the us-versus
them aspect of it.

104
00:04:38,967 --> 00:04:42,367
It makes it adversarial; it's polarizing.

105
00:04:42,400 --> 00:04:48,200
And the only foreseeable outcomes
are triumph -- glorious triumph --

106
00:04:48,233 --> 00:04:51,300
or abject, ignominious defeat.

107
00:04:51,333 --> 00:04:53,067
I think those are deforming effects,

108
00:04:53,100 --> 00:04:56,933
and worst of all, it seems
to prevent things like negotiation

109
00:04:56,967 --> 00:05:01,667
or deliberation or compromise
or collaboration.

110
00:05:02,233 --> 00:05:05,400
Think about that one -- have you
ever entered an argument thinking,

111
00:05:05,433 --> 00:05:08,800
"Let's see if we can hash something out,
rather than fight it out.

112
00:05:08,833 --> 00:05:10,733
What can we work out together?"

113
00:05:10,767 --> 00:05:13,133
I think the argument-as-war metaphor

114
00:05:13,167 --> 00:05:17,567
inhibits those other kinds
of resolutions to argumentation.

115
00:05:17,600 --> 00:05:20,033
And finally -- this is really
the worst thing --

116
00:05:20,067 --> 00:05:22,867
arguments don't seem to get us
anywhere; they're dead ends.

117
00:05:22,900 --> 00:05:28,567
They are like roundabouts or traffic jams
or gridlock in conversation.

118
00:05:28,600 --> 00:05:29,867
We don't get anywhere.

119
00:05:30,433 --> 00:05:31,700
And one more thing.

120
00:05:31,733 --> 00:05:34,633
And as an educator, this is the one
that really bothers me:

121
00:05:34,667 --> 00:05:36,833
If argument is war,

122
00:05:36,867 --> 00:05:41,867
then there's an implicit equation
of learning with losing.

123
00:05:41,900 --> 00:05:43,500
And let me explain what I mean.

124
00:05:44,067 --> 00:05:46,600
Suppose you and I have an argument.

125
00:05:46,633 --> 00:05:49,633
You believe a proposition, P, and I don't.

126
00:05:50,500 --> 00:05:52,400
And I say, "Well, why do you believe P?"

127
00:05:52,433 --> 00:05:53,833
And you give me your reasons.

128
00:05:53,867 --> 00:05:56,233
And I object and say,
"Well, what about ...?"

129
00:05:56,267 --> 00:05:57,767
And you answer my objection.

130
00:05:57,800 --> 00:06:00,200
And I have a question:
"Well, what do you mean?

131
00:06:00,233 --> 00:06:01,667
How does it apply over here?"

132
00:06:02,133 --> 00:06:03,767
And you answer my question.

133
00:06:03,800 --> 00:06:05,500
Now, suppose at the end of the day,

134
00:06:05,533 --> 00:06:07,633
I've objected, I've questioned,

135
00:06:07,667 --> 00:06:10,267
I've raised all sorts of counter
counter-considerations

136
00:06:10,300 --> 00:06:13,867
and in every case you've responded
to my satisfaction.

137
00:06:13,900 --> 00:06:16,533
And so at the end of the day, I say,

138
00:06:16,567 --> 00:06:19,900
"You know what? I guess you're right: P."

139
00:06:20,500 --> 00:06:22,833
So, I have a new belief.

140
00:06:22,867 --> 00:06:24,267
And it's not just any belief;

141
00:06:24,300 --> 00:06:30,600
it's well-articulated, examined --
it's a battle-tested belief.

142
00:06:31,800 --> 00:06:32,967
Great cognitive gain.

143
00:06:32,967 --> 00:06:34,333
OK, who won that argument?

144
00:06:35,600 --> 00:06:39,533
Well, the war metaphor
seems to force us into saying you won,

145
00:06:39,567 --> 00:06:42,267
even though I'm the only one
who made any cognitive gain.

146
00:06:42,300 --> 00:06:45,933
What did you gain, cognitively,
from convincing me?

147
00:06:45,967 --> 00:06:48,933
Sure, you got some pleasure out of it,
maybe your ego stroked,

148
00:06:48,967 --> 00:06:50,933
maybe you get some professional status

149
00:06:50,967 --> 00:06:53,533
in the field --
"This guy's a good arguer."

150
00:06:53,567 --> 00:06:56,533
But just from a cognitive point of view,

151
00:06:56,567 --> 00:06:57,833
who was the winner?

152
00:06:57,867 --> 00:07:02,667
The war metaphor forces us into thinking
that you're the winner and I lost,

153
00:07:02,700 --> 00:07:04,733
even though I gained.

154
00:07:04,767 --> 00:07:07,033
And there's something wrong
with that picture.

155
00:07:07,067 --> 00:07:09,767
And that's the picture
I really want to change if we can.

156
00:07:09,800 --> 00:07:13,133
So, how can we find ways

157
00:07:13,167 --> 00:07:16,733
to make arguments
yield something positive?

158
00:07:17,633 --> 00:07:20,633
What we need is new
exit strategies for arguments.

159
00:07:21,367 --> 00:07:24,233
But we're not going to have
new exit strategies for arguments

160
00:07:24,267 --> 00:07:27,567
until we have new entry
approaches to arguments.

161
00:07:27,600 --> 00:07:30,600
We need to think
of new kinds of arguments.

162
00:07:31,267 --> 00:07:33,833
In order to do that, well --

163
00:07:33,867 --> 00:07:35,533
I don't know how to do that.

164
00:07:36,100 --> 00:07:37,433
That's the bad news.

165
00:07:37,467 --> 00:07:40,467
The argument-as-war metaphor
is just ... it's a monster.

166
00:07:40,500 --> 00:07:42,900
It's just taken up habitation in our mind,

167
00:07:42,933 --> 00:07:45,367
and there's no magic bullet
that's going to kill it.

168
00:07:45,400 --> 00:07:48,033
There's no magic wand
that's going to make it disappear.

169
00:07:48,033 --> 00:07:49,300
I don't have an answer.

170
00:07:49,333 --> 00:07:50,667
But I have some suggestions.

171
00:07:50,700 --> 00:07:52,633
Here's my suggestion:

172
00:07:53,700 --> 00:07:55,900
If we want to think
of new kinds of arguments,

173
00:07:55,900 --> 00:07:59,567
what we need to do
is think of new kinds of arguers.

174
00:07:59,900 --> 00:08:01,833
So try this:

175
00:08:02,767 --> 00:08:07,200
Think of all the roles
that people play in arguments.

176
00:08:07,233 --> 00:08:10,200
There's the proponent and the opponent

177
00:08:10,233 --> 00:08:12,400
in an adversarial, dialectical argument.

178
00:08:12,433 --> 00:08:14,567
There's the audience
in rhetorical arguments.

179
00:08:14,600 --> 00:08:16,800
There's the reasoner
in arguments as proofs.

180
00:08:18,767 --> 00:08:20,067
All these different roles.

181
00:08:20,100 --> 00:08:23,933
Now, can you imagine an argument
in which you are the arguer,

182
00:08:23,967 --> 00:08:27,333
but you're also in the audience,
watching yourself argue?

183
00:08:27,967 --> 00:08:31,000
Can you imagine yourself
watching yourself argue,

184
00:08:31,033 --> 00:08:35,500
losing the argument, and yet still,
at the end of the argument, saying,

185
00:08:35,533 --> 00:08:38,033
"Wow, that was a good argument!"

186
00:08:39,133 --> 00:08:40,467
Can you do that?

187
00:08:40,500 --> 00:08:43,800
I think you can, and I think
if you can imagine that kind of argument,

188
00:08:43,833 --> 00:08:47,600
where the loser says to the winner
and the audience and the jury can say,

189
00:08:47,633 --> 00:08:49,567
"Yeah, that was a good argument,"

190
00:08:49,600 --> 00:08:51,467
then you have imagined a good argument.

191
00:08:51,467 --> 00:08:52,633
And more than that,

192
00:08:52,667 --> 00:08:54,633
I think you've imagined a good arguer,

193
00:08:54,667 --> 00:08:59,133
an arguer that's worthy of the kind
of arguer you should try to be.

194
00:08:59,567 --> 00:09:02,333
Now, I lose a lot of arguments.

195
00:09:02,367 --> 00:09:04,767
It takes practice to become a good arguer,

196
00:09:04,800 --> 00:09:07,967
in the sense of being able to benefit
from losing, but fortunately,

197
00:09:07,967 --> 00:09:10,933
I've had many, many colleagues
who have been willing to step up

198
00:09:10,967 --> 00:09:12,667
and provide that practice for me.

199
00:09:12,700 --> 00:09:13,867
Thank you.

200
00:09:13,900 --> 00:09:17,967
(Applause)