WEBVTT

00:00:01.267 --> 00:00:03.933
My name is Dan Cohen
and I am an academic, as he said.

00:00:04.500 --> 00:00:07.567
And what that means is that I argue.

00:00:07.600 --> 00:00:09.233
It's an important part of my life.

00:00:09.267 --> 00:00:10.433
And I like to argue.

00:00:10.733 --> 00:00:14.100
And I'm not just an academic,
I'm a philosopher,

00:00:14.133 --> 00:00:17.067
so I like to think that I'm actually
pretty good at arguing.

00:00:17.100 --> 00:00:19.900
But I also like to think
a lot about arguing.

NOTE Paragraph

00:00:20.367 --> 00:00:23.833
And in thinking about arguing,
I've come across some puzzles.

00:00:23.867 --> 00:00:25.767
And one of the puzzles is that,

00:00:25.800 --> 00:00:28.333
as I've been thinking
about arguing over the years --

00:00:28.367 --> 00:00:29.767
and it's been decades now --

00:00:29.800 --> 00:00:31.467
I've gotten better at arguing.

00:00:31.500 --> 00:00:35.000
But the more that I argue
and the better I get at arguing,

00:00:35.033 --> 00:00:36.333
the more that I lose.

00:00:36.967 --> 00:00:38.200
And that's a puzzle.

00:00:38.233 --> 00:00:41.100
And the other puzzle
is that I'm actually okay with that.

00:00:41.500 --> 00:00:43.333
Why is it that I'm okay with losing

00:00:43.367 --> 00:00:46.800
and why is it that I think good arguers
are actually better at losing?

NOTE Paragraph

00:00:46.833 --> 00:00:48.833
Well, there are some other puzzles.

00:00:48.867 --> 00:00:50.733
One is: why do we argue?

00:00:50.767 --> 00:00:52.400
Who benefits from arguments?

00:00:52.433 --> 00:00:54.767
When I think about arguments,
I'm talking about --

00:00:54.800 --> 00:00:57.633
let's call them academic arguments
or cognitive arguments --

00:00:57.667 --> 00:00:59.500
where something cognitive is at stake:

00:00:59.533 --> 00:01:02.267
Is this proposition true?
Is this theory a good theory?

00:01:02.300 --> 00:01:06.767
Is this a viable interpretation
of the data or the text? And so on.

00:01:06.800 --> 00:01:10.767
I'm not interested really in arguments
about whose turn it is to do the dishes

00:01:10.800 --> 00:01:12.467
or who has to take out the garbage.

00:01:12.500 --> 00:01:14.800
Yeah, we have those arguments, too.

00:01:14.833 --> 00:01:17.567
I tend to win those arguments,
because I know the tricks.

00:01:17.600 --> 00:01:19.567
But those aren't the important arguments.

00:01:19.600 --> 00:01:21.367
I'm interested in academic arguments,

00:01:21.400 --> 00:01:23.267
and here are the things that puzzle me.

NOTE Paragraph

00:01:24.667 --> 00:01:27.733
First, what do good arguers win
when they win an argument?

00:01:27.767 --> 00:01:30.233
What do I win if I convince you

00:01:30.267 --> 00:01:32.700
that utilitarianism isn't really
the right framework

00:01:32.733 --> 00:01:34.467
for thinking about ethical theories?

00:01:34.500 --> 00:01:36.367
What do we win when we win an argument?

00:01:36.400 --> 00:01:37.733
Even before that,

00:01:37.767 --> 00:01:39.000
what does it matter to me

00:01:39.033 --> 00:01:41.967
whether you have this idea
that Kant's theory works

00:01:42.000 --> 00:01:45.167
or Mill is the right ethicist to follow?

00:01:45.200 --> 00:01:46.567
It's no skin off my back

00:01:46.600 --> 00:01:49.767
whether you think functionalism
is a viable theory of mind.

00:01:50.300 --> 00:01:52.333
So why do we even try to argue?

00:01:52.367 --> 00:01:54.200
Why do we try to convince other people

00:01:54.233 --> 00:01:56.400
to believe things
they don't want to believe,

00:01:56.433 --> 00:01:58.200
and is that even a nice thing to do?

00:01:58.233 --> 00:02:00.467
Is that a nice way to treat
another human being,

00:02:00.500 --> 00:02:03.467
try and make them think something
they don't want to think?

NOTE Paragraph

00:02:03.500 --> 00:02:08.167
Well, my answer is going to make reference
to three models for arguments.

00:02:08.200 --> 00:02:10.933
The first model -- let's call it
the dialectical model --

00:02:10.967 --> 00:02:13.867
is we think of arguments as war;
you know what that's like --

00:02:13.900 --> 00:02:16.600
a lot of screaming and shouting
and winning and losing.

00:02:16.633 --> 00:02:18.767
That's not a very helpful
model for arguing,

00:02:18.800 --> 00:02:21.533
but it's a pretty common
and entrenched model for arguing.

NOTE Paragraph

00:02:21.567 --> 00:02:24.800
But there's a second model for arguing:
arguments as proofs.

00:02:24.833 --> 00:02:26.900
Think of a mathematician's argument.

00:02:26.933 --> 00:02:29.700
Here's my argument.
Does it work? Is it any good?

00:02:29.733 --> 00:02:34.200
Are the premises warranted?
Are the inferences valid?

00:02:34.233 --> 00:02:36.767
Does the conclusion follow
from the premises?

00:02:36.800 --> 00:02:39.200
No opposition, no adversariality --

00:02:39.233 --> 00:02:44.900
not necessarily any arguing
in the adversarial sense.

NOTE Paragraph

00:02:44.933 --> 00:02:46.900
But there's a third model to keep in mind

00:02:46.933 --> 00:02:48.900
that I think is going to be very helpful,

00:02:48.933 --> 00:02:53.933
and that is arguments as performances,
arguments in front of an audience.

00:02:53.967 --> 00:02:56.900
We can think of a politician
trying to present a position,

00:02:56.933 --> 00:02:59.067
trying to convince
the audience of something.

00:02:59.100 --> 00:03:02.567
But there's another twist on this model
that I really think is important;

00:03:02.600 --> 00:03:06.600
namely, that when we argue
before an audience,

00:03:06.633 --> 00:03:10.700
sometimes the audience has
a more participatory role in the argument;

00:03:10.733 --> 00:03:15.233
that is, arguments are also
[performances] in front of juries,

00:03:15.267 --> 00:03:18.033
who make a judgment and decide the case.

00:03:18.067 --> 00:03:19.867
Let's call this the rhetorical model,

00:03:19.900 --> 00:03:23.600
where you have to tailor your argument
to the audience at hand.

00:03:23.633 --> 00:03:26.267
You know, presenting a sound, well-argued,

00:03:26.300 --> 00:03:29.667
tight argument in English
before a francophone audience

00:03:29.700 --> 00:03:31.300
just isn't going to work.

00:03:31.800 --> 00:03:35.433
So we have these models --
argument as war, argument as proof

00:03:35.467 --> 00:03:37.833
and argument as performance.

NOTE Paragraph

00:03:38.167 --> 00:03:41.933
Of those three, the argument as war
is the dominant one.

00:03:42.467 --> 00:03:45.067
It dominates how we talk about arguments,

00:03:45.100 --> 00:03:47.133
it dominates how we think about arguments,

00:03:47.167 --> 00:03:50.133
and because of that,
it shapes how we argue,

00:03:50.167 --> 00:03:51.933
our actual conduct in arguments.

NOTE Paragraph

00:03:51.967 --> 00:03:53.633
Now, when we talk about arguments,

00:03:53.667 --> 00:03:55.633
we talk in a very militaristic language.

00:03:55.667 --> 00:03:58.900
We want strong arguments,
arguments that have a lot of punch,

00:03:58.933 --> 00:04:00.600
arguments that are right on target.

00:04:00.633 --> 00:04:03.800
We want to have our defenses up
and our strategies all in order.

00:04:03.833 --> 00:04:06.400
We want killer arguments.

00:04:06.433 --> 00:04:08.433
That's the kind of argument we want.

00:04:09.200 --> 00:04:11.600
It is the dominant way
of thinking about arguments.

00:04:11.633 --> 00:04:13.233
When I'm talking about arguments,

00:04:13.267 --> 00:04:16.100
that's probably what you thought of,
the adversarial model.

00:04:16.433 --> 00:04:18.933
But the war metaphor,

00:04:18.967 --> 00:04:21.700
the war paradigm or model
for thinking about arguments,

00:04:21.733 --> 00:04:24.700
has, I think, deforming effects
on how we argue.

NOTE Paragraph

00:04:25.100 --> 00:04:28.067
First, it elevates tactics over substance.

00:04:28.967 --> 00:04:31.100
You can take a class
in logic, argumentation.

00:04:31.133 --> 00:04:32.833
You learn all about the subterfuges

00:04:32.867 --> 00:04:35.733
that people use to try and win
arguments -- the false steps.

00:04:35.767 --> 00:04:38.933
It magnifies the us-versus
them aspect of it.

00:04:38.967 --> 00:04:42.367
It makes it adversarial; it's polarizing.

00:04:42.400 --> 00:04:48.200
And the only foreseeable outcomes
are triumph -- glorious triumph --

00:04:48.233 --> 00:04:51.300
or abject, ignominious defeat.

00:04:51.333 --> 00:04:53.067
I think those are deforming effects,

00:04:53.100 --> 00:04:56.933
and worst of all, it seems
to prevent things like negotiation

00:04:56.967 --> 00:05:01.667
or deliberation or compromise
or collaboration.

00:05:02.233 --> 00:05:05.400
Think about that one -- have you
ever entered an argument thinking,

00:05:05.433 --> 00:05:08.800
"Let's see if we can hash something out,
rather than fight it out.

00:05:08.833 --> 00:05:10.733
What can we work out together?"

00:05:10.767 --> 00:05:13.133
I think the argument-as-war metaphor

00:05:13.167 --> 00:05:17.567
inhibits those other kinds
of resolutions to argumentation.

00:05:17.600 --> 00:05:20.033
And finally -- this is really
the worst thing --

00:05:20.067 --> 00:05:22.867
arguments don't seem to get us
anywhere; they're dead ends.

00:05:22.900 --> 00:05:28.567
They are like roundabouts or traffic jams
or gridlock in conversation.

00:05:28.600 --> 00:05:29.867
We don't get anywhere.

NOTE Paragraph

00:05:30.433 --> 00:05:31.700
And one more thing.

NOTE Paragraph

00:05:31.733 --> 00:05:34.633
And as an educator, this is the one
that really bothers me:

00:05:34.667 --> 00:05:36.833
If argument is war,

00:05:36.867 --> 00:05:41.867
then there's an implicit equation
of learning with losing.

00:05:41.900 --> 00:05:43.500
And let me explain what I mean.

00:05:44.067 --> 00:05:46.600
Suppose you and I have an argument.

00:05:46.633 --> 00:05:49.633
You believe a proposition, P, and I don't.

00:05:50.500 --> 00:05:52.400
And I say, "Well, why do you believe P?"

00:05:52.433 --> 00:05:53.833
And you give me your reasons.

00:05:53.867 --> 00:05:56.233
And I object and say,
"Well, what about ...?"

00:05:56.267 --> 00:05:57.767
And you answer my objection.

00:05:57.800 --> 00:06:00.200
And I have a question:
"Well, what do you mean?

00:06:00.233 --> 00:06:01.667
How does it apply over here?"

00:06:02.133 --> 00:06:03.767
And you answer my question.

00:06:03.800 --> 00:06:05.500
Now, suppose at the end of the day,

00:06:05.533 --> 00:06:07.633
I've objected, I've questioned,

00:06:07.667 --> 00:06:10.267
I've raised all sorts of counter
counter-considerations

00:06:10.300 --> 00:06:13.867
and in every case you've responded
to my satisfaction.

00:06:13.900 --> 00:06:16.533
And so at the end of the day, I say,

00:06:16.567 --> 00:06:19.900
"You know what? I guess you're right: P."

00:06:20.500 --> 00:06:22.833
So, I have a new belief.

00:06:22.867 --> 00:06:24.267
And it's not just any belief;

00:06:24.300 --> 00:06:30.600
it's well-articulated, examined --
it's a battle-tested belief.

NOTE Paragraph

00:06:31.800 --> 00:06:32.967
Great cognitive gain.

NOTE Paragraph

00:06:32.967 --> 00:06:34.333
OK, who won that argument?

00:06:35.600 --> 00:06:39.533
Well, the war metaphor
seems to force us into saying you won,

00:06:39.567 --> 00:06:42.267
even though I'm the only one
who made any cognitive gain.

00:06:42.300 --> 00:06:45.933
What did you gain, cognitively,
from convincing me?

00:06:45.967 --> 00:06:48.933
Sure, you got some pleasure out of it,
maybe your ego stroked,

00:06:48.967 --> 00:06:50.933
maybe you get some professional status

00:06:50.967 --> 00:06:53.533
in the field --
"This guy's a good arguer."

00:06:53.567 --> 00:06:56.533
But just from a cognitive point of view,

00:06:56.567 --> 00:06:57.833
who was the winner?

00:06:57.867 --> 00:07:02.667
The war metaphor forces us into thinking
that you're the winner and I lost,

00:07:02.700 --> 00:07:04.733
even though I gained.

00:07:04.767 --> 00:07:07.033
And there's something wrong
with that picture.

00:07:07.067 --> 00:07:09.767
And that's the picture
I really want to change if we can.

NOTE Paragraph

00:07:09.800 --> 00:07:13.133
So, how can we find ways

00:07:13.167 --> 00:07:16.733
to make arguments
yield something positive?

00:07:17.633 --> 00:07:20.633
What we need is new
exit strategies for arguments.

00:07:21.367 --> 00:07:24.233
But we're not going to have
new exit strategies for arguments

00:07:24.267 --> 00:07:27.567
until we have new entry
approaches to arguments.

00:07:27.600 --> 00:07:30.600
We need to think
of new kinds of arguments.

00:07:31.267 --> 00:07:33.833
In order to do that, well --

00:07:33.867 --> 00:07:35.533
I don't know how to do that.

00:07:36.100 --> 00:07:37.433
That's the bad news.

00:07:37.467 --> 00:07:40.467
The argument-as-war metaphor
is just ... it's a monster.

00:07:40.500 --> 00:07:42.900
It's just taken up habitation in our mind,

00:07:42.933 --> 00:07:45.367
and there's no magic bullet
that's going to kill it.

00:07:45.400 --> 00:07:48.033
There's no magic wand
that's going to make it disappear.

00:07:48.033 --> 00:07:49.300
I don't have an answer.

00:07:49.333 --> 00:07:50.667
But I have some suggestions.

00:07:50.700 --> 00:07:52.633
Here's my suggestion:

NOTE Paragraph

00:07:53.700 --> 00:07:55.900
If we want to think
of new kinds of arguments,

00:07:55.900 --> 00:07:59.567
what we need to do
is think of new kinds of arguers.

00:07:59.900 --> 00:08:01.833
So try this:

00:08:02.767 --> 00:08:07.200
Think of all the roles
that people play in arguments.

00:08:07.233 --> 00:08:10.200
There's the proponent and the opponent

00:08:10.233 --> 00:08:12.400
in an adversarial, dialectical argument.

00:08:12.433 --> 00:08:14.567
There's the audience
in rhetorical arguments.

00:08:14.600 --> 00:08:16.800
There's the reasoner
in arguments as proofs.

00:08:18.767 --> 00:08:20.067
All these different roles.

00:08:20.100 --> 00:08:23.933
Now, can you imagine an argument
in which you are the arguer,

00:08:23.967 --> 00:08:27.333
but you're also in the audience,
watching yourself argue?

00:08:27.967 --> 00:08:31.000
Can you imagine yourself
watching yourself argue,

00:08:31.033 --> 00:08:35.500
losing the argument, and yet still,
at the end of the argument, saying,

00:08:35.533 --> 00:08:38.033
"Wow, that was a good argument!"

00:08:39.133 --> 00:08:40.467
Can you do that?

00:08:40.500 --> 00:08:43.800
I think you can, and I think
if you can imagine that kind of argument,

00:08:43.833 --> 00:08:47.600
where the loser says to the winner
and the audience and the jury can say,

00:08:47.633 --> 00:08:49.567
"Yeah, that was a good argument,"

00:08:49.600 --> 00:08:51.467
then you have imagined a good argument.

00:08:51.467 --> 00:08:52.633
And more than that,

00:08:52.667 --> 00:08:54.633
I think you've imagined a good arguer,

00:08:54.667 --> 00:08:59.133
an arguer that's worthy of the kind
of arguer you should try to be.

NOTE Paragraph

00:08:59.567 --> 00:09:02.333
Now, I lose a lot of arguments.

00:09:02.367 --> 00:09:04.767
It takes practice to become a good arguer,

00:09:04.800 --> 00:09:07.967
in the sense of being able to benefit
from losing, but fortunately,

00:09:07.967 --> 00:09:10.933
I've had many, many colleagues
who have been willing to step up

00:09:10.967 --> 00:09:12.667
and provide that practice for me.

NOTE Paragraph

00:09:12.700 --> 00:09:13.867
Thank you.

NOTE Paragraph

00:09:13.900 --> 00:09:17.967
(Applause)