Many introductions to philosophy will tell you there is a difference between rhetoric, which is the art of persuasion, and philosophical argument, which is the pursuit of truth. Many persuasive arguments are false, and many sound arguments unpersuasive.
All this is true. But as soon as you move into the political, you ignore rhetoric at your peril. If there is a truth (or perhaps, more guardedly, a most rationally supported view) about an issue like asylum law, then it would be very odd if you didn’t mind whether the right view prevailed, just as long as your arguments were logically coherent.
With these thoughts in mind I tuned into the latest edition of Radio Four’s The Moral Maze on asylum. One of the guests was Kate Adie, who chaired a Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust enquiry into destitution in which I was involved.
In her cross examination, it became clear that the main tactic of her critics was to shift the terms of the debate. This is a classic rhetorical device which creates a dilemma for the person being quizzed. If you refuse to be shifted you can look evasive, as though you are trying to avoid answering tough questions. But if you try to go with the questioner and lead the line of enquiry back, you risk going down a blind alley, fighting on your opponents terms, or making matters too complicated to follow.
In this case, Kate’s key focus was on the plight of people who have been refused asylum but remain in this country because they cannot or choose not to return home. Whether you want then to stay or not, you have to accept that current policies aren’t working. (I went on about this more in an earlier post.)
Michael Portillo’s first attempt to divert her was very odd, since it was to ask why the report wasn’t about the 200,000 who had disappeared from the system. Well, that’s exactly what the report was about, so that failed. Later, he tried to argue that there was no mention of the people who had been refused and had returned home, since by definition they weren’t around to be interviewed. This sounds like a fair point: if the argument is that the big stick approach doesn’t encourage return, then surely you need to know that people haven’t actually been returning.
In fact, this is again a spurious attempt to shift the grounds of the argument. The case for saying that the big stick isn’t working is that up to 450,000 people choose to be beaten by it rather than follow the commands of the baton-wielder. Whether or not others have given in is actually besides the point. The failures are so large that even if the system can claim other successes, it’s not a sufficient defence. (It reminds me of that wonderful The Day Today segment where a night attendant at a swimming pool tries to argue he’s done a good job by listing all the years in which no one died, and that 1990 was just an anomaly.)
So how do you deal with these attacks? On paper, of course, you try to give good rational responses. But in face to face debate, that can be very hard. The key, I think, is to enter the debate knowing the grounds on which you want to fight and to be ready to try to steer the questioner back onto them. But also important is nothing to do with rigours of argument, but force of personality. Psychologists have shown that we are just more likely to believe people who put their case confidently. Being understanding of the opposition is an intellectual virtue, but it can be politically disastrous in live debate if your goal is to win.
That’s why it’s better to put a broadcasting pro like Kate Aidie on the programme than a nerdy policy wonk (which is not to suggest that Kate doesn’t have a good intellectual grasp of the issues). She knows how to stand her ground. Early on she was asked why refused asylum seekers don’t go home. “They won’t…” she began and was interrupted. “They won’t, they can’t and they fear to,” she then said, but Michael Buerk talked over her. So, a third time, uninterrupted, she got her soundbite out. It’s a tactic politicians will have used against her in the past, but just because you know the importance of rhetoric for winning, that doesn’t mean there is no substance or values behind your style.
One more post to come on this subject and then that’s it. For now.
Critical Thinking
The point is to win
Discussion
10 comments for “The point is to win”
Post a comment
Categories
Subscribe to TPM
Support TPM
© 2007 Talking Philosophy. 
The first paragraph of this article had me, first of all, thinking to myself “now that makes sense” and secondly, adding this site to my bookmarks. Yummy, a nice fat dose of clear and critical thinking.
As someone who has spent a great deal of my life bogged down in the mire of various rather shaky belief systems and recently having concluded that if my current views were to be categorised at all they are roughly humanist, I found myself hitting Google with the search string “British humanism”. Perhaps due to some misguided need to belong to a group of like minded individuals. Thankfully a link to this site questioning statements made by members of the BHA wasn’t too far down the page. But, I digress.
Very interesting that powerful personalities can carry us away from the truth in political debate. Having read my local weekly newspaper today I was rather concerned to hear that the BNP were making inroads to election in my area. A party that seems to pin it’s hopes of electoral success on xenophobia. This being a small market town in North Yorkshire where an anonymous poll on the locals’ website indicated that over 35% of voters think we should have the death penalty for child murderers!
In short, I am fearful of how easily the light of reason can be snuffed out by someone who has mastered the art of rhetoric, unscrupulous or otherwise.
I’m am an unlearned man by most intellectuals’ standards so please excuse my question if it is not a good question, to be honest im a little intimidated, but here I go…
In philosophy (presumption) there is a certain way you would bring about a subject, and you would explain why you believed that way based on a certain set of rules that dictate the way those ideas are formed, or presented. Yes or no? Im curious, because my actual question is why must one go by those set of rules? Could there be a different set of rules prescribed that would actually define what a logical answer would be rather than the system we use now? For instance I am a bible believing man, who bases everything I think off of what the bible teaches. Im not actually your typical close minded bible believing lemming, but I like to think everything through. But there are times the bible says this is the way things are, and by my faith I must believe what is said to be even though it may go against all reason. So I was talking to a philosophy major whom I am friends with who said that the bible has no place in philosophy. So because I look through the lens of the bible to form my ideas and opinion, that I would not be able to form a solid philosophical argument based on logic on issues such as morality, or good and bad. So why them am I disqualified in disputing what somebody says because I am unable to present my opinion in what would be considered a logical thought but because of the other persons standard of what defines logic?
Jerome,
It’s not about what rules you choose to adopt. We don’t just choose the basic rules of good logic and argument. In fact, the reason your comments make sense at all is that they follow basic rules of sound reasoning: you understand that if you say some things, other things are ruled out or entailed. In philosophy, the goal is to argue by these general standards of reasoning - although, of course, philosophers dissect these rules more closely than we do in ordinary speech.
If, however, you choose to base all your reasoning on a text, such as the Bible, which there is no independent rational reason to accept as authoritative, you immediately start to argue in a different way. To answer “because the Bible says so” means that someone who does not accept the Bible’s authority has no grounds on which to explore your differences. But if someone says “because that is self-contradictory” or “because the first thing entails the second”, then anyone reasonable person has grounds to accept or reject the argument.
So it’s not a matter of how other people define logic. If you reject the very basic principles of rational argument, you end up incapabale of rational discourse at all. The proof is that if you disagree with this, or have questions about it, you will either engage with the argument by showing its rational weaknesses etc; or you will abandon reason altogether.
Now im not trying to start a debate, because like I said earlier I am for the most part an unlearned man. So I come with no “answers,” just questions and personal views, In which I hope somebody with the patience enough would be able to maybe broaden my view on these my questions. I appreciate the answer to my last entry, but I have a few more questions in answer to what was written to me. Thank you…
“To answer “because the Bible says so” means that someone who does not accept the Bible’s authority has no grounds on which to explore your differences.”
Would it be true to say the same thing (the above stated) of the thoughts that are derived outside of the bible? To answer “because (fill in the blank) says so” means that someone who does not accept the (blanks) authority has no grounds on which to explore the differences presented.
——————————————————————————————————
“Such as the Bible, which there is no independent rational reason to accept as authoritative…”
The statement you had made that says “there is no independent rational reason to accept (the bible) as authoritative.” Has caused me to ask the question what would be considered independent rational reason? Science? Experience? Natural Law? Majority Opinion?
I know that these questions may seem absurd to many who read this, so please bare with me. Thank you…
I dont know if you would be so kind, but I would be interested in reading the paper you had written called “Philosophy of Personal Identity” So I was wondering where I might be able to read it?
Jerome,
I’m not sure I’m best qualified to help shed light on your questions. But here’s my two penneth anyway..
As a former Christian I can understand, I hope, where you are coming from. The main problem with trying to use ‘faith’ as a starting point is that if you accept something without question, e.g. “An omnipotent God created the Earth in seven days”, then really you have no solid foundation at all for any kind of ’scientific’ enquiry, you’ve basically already decided on the answer (The question being in this case: how did the Earth come into being).
You may benefit from reading up on the common methods scientists use to reach established facts. E.g. Forming a hypothesis to explain a particular phenomena, followed by a tentative theory which must be supported by multiple strands of evidence, testing the theory exhaustively, then peer review etc.
So, say you started with the hypothesis that the Earth was created by a God. First of all you would need to find some proper evidence to support this idea. Unfortunately, even if millions of people agree with what it says in the Bible about creation, it still does not constitute evidence. The truth is not brought to light by force of popular opinion or something somebody wrote down in a religious text.
I guess really faith doesn’t have a part to play in any credible search for truth. I believe the use of philosophy, scepticism, reason and scientific enquiry will ultimately undermine your faith. And quite rightly so.
Personally, I find it liberating to use these tools and regard the many years I spent accepting religious dogma without question a great waste of time.
Hope this helps.
Thank you for your comments, I will defiantly take a deeper look into what it is I believe, why I believe what it is I believe. So does philosophy exclude a God all together? If anybody would like to leave some comments, I would be much obliged.
I have no desire to abandon my faith, I feel in a way, challenged to prove it. I know there has probably been many a great thinkers before me who have thought to take on such a load only to fail. I in no way am considered a great thinker, but I believe what the bible says when it says…”The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.” So I feel at least Im starting off in the right direction. So to prove God exists… wish me luck. I don’t give up very easily. Thank you two wonderful gentlemen for answering my almost child like comments in such an arena as this. I have the utmost respect for you gentlemen who are considered to be great thinkers.
If there could maybe be a discussion about “does God exist?” opened up on this page, I would be very curious to see some of the responses.
Jerome,
Have you considered that if you find irrefutable proof for the existence of God through the practice of philosophy (or otherwise) then you will have destroyed the need for your faith?
Good luck.
I think the key thing here is that if you want to argue philosophically, you never argue that anything is true because somebody or some thing says so. It is true that you do point to evidence and good arguments, so you may ask, what makes these good bases for belief? That’s a big question, but I think you can begin to fill out the answer for yourself. At the very least, they are reliable, whereas people make all sorts of contradictory claims on the basis of faith or conviction.
“Irrefutable proof for the existence of God through the practice of philosophy (or otherwise) then you will have destroyed the need for your faith?” that is a thought I had never heard before… I guess you are right. To go a little bit farther with your argument, it would actually destroy our ability to choose between believing in him or not.
Having faith is a building block in understanding Gods love. If there was a God who wanted us to Love him, than giving us a choice seems to be the only way we could really give ourselves to him in love. You are amazing my friend; through the conversations here, I have come to conclude that we could not ever prove God exists; So than it is by faith… a man described in words is not the real man, any more than a God described in words is the real God… I know now we cant prove God.