TEDxColbyCollege
Daniel H. Cohen: For argument's sake
Filmed:
Readability: 4.3
1,613,190 views
Why do we argue? To out-reason our opponents, prove them wrong, and, most of all, to win! Right? Philosopher Daniel H. Cohen shows how our most common form of argument -- a war in which one person must win and the other must lose -- misses out on the real benefits of engaging in active disagreement.
Daniel H. Cohen - Philosopher
Philosopher Daniel H. Cohen studies language and the way we argue through reason. Full bio
Philosopher Daniel H. Cohen studies language and the way we argue through reason. Full bio
Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.
00:12
My name is Dan Cohen, and I am academic, as he said.
0
452
3432
00:15
And what that means is that I argue.
1
3884
3760
00:19
It's an important part of my life, and I like to argue.
2
7644
2600
00:22
And I'm not just an academic, I'm a philosopher,
3
10244
3717
00:25
so I like to think that I'm actually pretty good at arguing.
4
13961
2990
00:28
But I also like to think a lot about arguing.
5
16951
3174
00:32
And thinking about arguing, I've come across some puzzles,
6
20125
3541
00:35
and one of the puzzles is that
7
23666
1836
00:37
as I've been thinking about arguing over the years,
8
25502
2150
00:39
and it's been decades now, I've gotten better at arguing,
9
27652
3555
00:43
but the more that I argue and the better I get at arguing,
10
31207
3570
00:46
the more that I lose. And that's a puzzle.
11
34777
3310
00:50
And the other puzzle is that I'm actually okay with that.
12
38087
3171
00:53
Why is it that I'm okay with losing
13
41258
2115
00:55
and why is it that I think that good arguers
14
43373
1431
00:56
are actually better at losing?
15
44804
2132
00:58
Well, there's some other puzzles.
16
46936
1921
01:00
One is, why do we argue? Who benefits from arguments?
17
48857
3585
01:04
And when I think about arguments now, I'm talking about,
18
52442
2000
01:06
let's call them academic arguments or cognitive arguments,
19
54442
2758
01:09
where something cognitive is at stake.
20
57200
1906
01:11
Is this proposition true? Is this theory a good theory?
21
59106
3192
01:14
Is this a viable interpretation of the data or the text?
22
62298
3883
01:18
And so on. I'm not interested really in arguments about
23
66181
2524
01:20
whose turn it is to do the dishes or who has to take out the garbage.
24
68705
3463
01:24
Yeah, we have those arguments too.
25
72168
2336
01:26
I tend to win those arguments, because I know the tricks.
26
74504
2488
01:28
But those aren't the important arguments.
27
76992
1191
01:30
I'm interested in academic arguments today,
28
78183
2168
01:32
and here are the things that puzzle me.
29
80351
2170
01:34
First, what do good arguers win when they win an argument?
30
82521
5265
01:39
What do I win if I convince you that
31
87786
2334
01:42
utilitarianism isn't really the right framework for thinking about ethical theories?
32
90120
3375
01:45
So what do we win when we win an argument?
33
93495
2230
01:47
Even before that, what does it matter to me
34
95725
3101
01:50
whether you have this idea that Kant's theory works
35
98826
3241
01:54
or Mill's the right ethicist to follow?
36
102067
2835
01:56
It's no skin off my back whether you think
37
104902
2699
01:59
functionalism is a viable theory of mind.
38
107601
2597
02:02
So why do we even try to argue?
39
110198
2232
02:04
Why do we try to convince other people
40
112430
1821
02:06
to believe things that they don't want to believe?
41
114251
1868
02:08
And is that even a nice thing to do? Is that a nice way
42
116119
2590
02:10
to treat another human being, try and make them
43
118709
1728
02:12
think something they don't want to think?
44
120437
3094
02:15
Well, my answer is going to make reference to
45
123531
2993
02:18
three models for arguments.
46
126524
1690
02:20
The first model, let's call this the dialectical model,
47
128214
1960
02:22
is that we think of arguments as war, and you know what that's like.
48
130174
2598
02:24
There's a lot of screaming and shouting
49
132772
1885
02:26
and winning and losing,
50
134657
1243
02:27
and that's not really a very helpful model for arguing
51
135900
2451
02:30
but it's a pretty common and entrenched model for arguing.
52
138351
2758
02:33
But there's a second model for arguing: arguments as proofs.
53
141109
3600
02:36
Think of a mathematician's argument.
54
144709
2218
02:38
Here's my argument. Does it work? Is it any good?
55
146927
2734
02:41
Are the premises warranted? Are the inferences valid?
56
149661
4205
02:45
Does the conclusion follow from the premises?
57
153866
2736
02:48
No opposition, no adversariality,
58
156602
2704
02:51
not necessarily any arguing in the adversarial sense.
59
159306
5617
02:56
But there's a third model to keep in mind
60
164923
1932
02:58
that I think is going to be very helpful,
61
166855
1486
03:00
and that is arguments as performances,
62
168341
3533
03:03
arguments as being in front of an audience.
63
171874
2044
03:05
We can think of a politician trying to present a position,
64
173918
3032
03:08
trying to convince the audience of something.
65
176950
2360
03:11
But there's another twist on this model that I really think is important,
66
179310
3151
03:14
namely that when we argue before an audience,
67
182461
3962
03:18
sometimes the audience has a more participatory role in the argument,
68
186423
4240
03:22
that is, arguments are also audiences in front of juries
69
190663
4502
03:27
who make a judgment and decide the case.
70
195165
2825
03:29
Let's call this the rhetorical model,
71
197990
1820
03:31
where you have to tailor your argument to the audience at hand.
72
199810
3943
03:35
You know, presenting a sound, well-argued,
73
203753
2497
03:38
tight argument in English before a francophone audience
74
206250
3430
03:41
just isn't going to work.
75
209680
1903
03:43
So we have these models -- argument as war,
76
211583
2523
03:46
argument as proof, and argument as performance.
77
214106
3794
03:49
Of those three, the argument as war is the dominant one.
78
217900
4300
03:54
It dominates how we talk about arguments,
79
222200
2861
03:57
it dominates how we think about arguments,
80
225061
2198
03:59
and because of that, it shapes how we argue,
81
227259
2862
04:02
our actual conduct in arguments.
82
230121
1778
04:03
Now, when we talk about arguments,
83
231899
1481
04:05
yeah, we talk in a very militaristic language.
84
233380
2072
04:07
We want strong arguments, arguments that have a lot of punch,
85
235452
3467
04:10
arguments that are right on target.
86
238919
1898
04:12
We want to have our defenses up and our strategies all in order.
87
240817
2935
04:15
We want killer arguments.
88
243752
2398
04:18
That's the kind of argument we want.
89
246150
2966
04:21
It is the dominant way of thinking about arguments.
90
249116
2048
04:23
When I'm talking about arguments, that's probably
91
251164
1983
04:25
what you thought of, the adversarial model.
92
253147
3337
04:28
But the war metaphor, the war paradigm
93
256484
3537
04:32
or model for thinking about arguments,
94
260021
1769
04:33
has, I think, deforming effects on how we argue.
95
261790
3158
04:36
First it elevates tactics over substance.
96
264948
3347
04:40
You can take a class in logic, argumentation.
97
268295
2481
04:42
You learn all about the subterfuges that people use
98
270776
2504
04:45
to try and win arguments, the false steps.
99
273280
1989
04:47
It magnifies the us-versus-them aspect of it.
100
275269
3877
04:51
It makes it adversarial. It's polarizing.
101
279146
3245
04:54
And the only foreseeable outcomes
102
282391
3233
04:57
are triumph, glorious triumph, or abject, ignominious defeat.
103
285624
5746
05:03
I think those are deforming effects, and worst of all,
104
291370
2683
05:06
it seems to prevent things like negotiation
105
294053
2755
05:08
or deliberation or compromise
106
296808
2531
05:11
or collaboration.
107
299339
2981
05:14
Think about that one. Have you ever entered an argument
108
302320
1996
05:16
thinking, "Let's see if we can hash something out
109
304316
3224
05:19
rather than fight it out. What can we work out together?"
110
307540
3075
05:22
And I think the argument-as-war metaphor
111
310615
2296
05:24
inhibits those other kinds of resolutions to argumentation.
112
312911
4342
05:29
And finally, this is really the worst thing,
113
317253
2827
05:32
arguments don't seem to get us anywhere.
114
320080
1857
05:33
They're dead ends. They are roundabouts
115
321937
2576
05:36
or traffic jams or gridlock in conversation.
116
324513
3801
05:40
We don't get anywhere.
117
328314
1842
05:42
Oh, and one more thing, and as an educator,
118
330156
2313
05:44
this is the one that really bothers me:
119
332469
2111
05:46
If argument is war, then there's an implicit equation
120
334580
3719
05:50
of learning with losing.
121
338299
3617
05:53
And let me explain what I mean.
122
341916
1920
05:55
Suppose you and I have an argument.
123
343836
2616
05:58
You believe a proposition, P, and I don't.
124
346452
4024
06:02
And I say, "Well why do you believe P?"
125
350476
1847
06:04
And you give me your reasons.
126
352323
1669
06:05
And I object and say, "Well, what about ...?"
127
353992
2031
06:08
And you answer my objection.
128
356023
1862
06:09
And I have a question: "Well, what do you mean?
129
357885
2225
06:12
How does it apply over here?" And you answer my question.
130
360110
3598
06:15
Now, suppose at the end of the day,
131
363708
1428
06:17
I've objected, I've questioned,
132
365136
1963
06:19
I've raised all sorts of counter-considerations,
133
367099
3039
06:22
and in every case you've responded to my satisfaction.
134
370138
3762
06:25
And so at the end of the day, I say,
135
373900
2590
06:28
"You know what? I guess you're right. P."
136
376490
3850
06:32
So I have a new belief. And it's not just any belief,
137
380340
3657
06:35
but it's a well-articulated, examined,
138
383997
4574
06:40
it's a battle-tested belief.
139
388571
2982
06:43
Great cognitive gain. Okay. Who won that argument?
140
391553
4001
06:47
Well, the war metaphor seems to force us into saying
141
395554
2961
06:50
you won, even though I'm the only one who made any cognitive gain.
142
398515
3449
06:53
What did you gain cognitively from convincing me?
143
401964
3873
06:57
Sure, you got some pleasure out of it, maybe your ego stroked,
144
405837
2805
07:00
maybe you get some professional status in the field.
145
408642
3109
07:03
This guy's a good arguer.
146
411751
1588
07:05
But cognitively, now -- just from a cognitive point of view -- who was the winner?
147
413339
4254
07:09
The war metaphor forces us into thinking
148
417593
1979
07:11
that you're the winner and I lost,
149
419572
2940
07:14
even though I gained.
150
422512
2282
07:16
And there's something wrong with that picture.
151
424794
2201
07:18
And that's the picture I really want to change if we can.
152
426995
2816
07:21
So how can we find ways to make arguments
153
429811
4814
07:26
yield something positive?
154
434625
2759
07:29
What we need is new exit strategies for arguments.
155
437384
3738
07:33
But we're not going to have new exit strategies for arguments
156
441122
3206
07:36
until we have new entry approaches to arguments.
157
444328
3136
07:39
We need to think of new kinds of arguments.
158
447464
3434
07:42
In order to do that, well,
159
450898
3058
07:45
I don't know how to do that.
160
453956
2183
07:48
That's the bad news.
161
456139
1416
07:49
The argument-as-war metaphor is just, it's a monster.
162
457555
3080
07:52
It's just taken up habitation in our mind,
163
460635
2352
07:54
and there's no magic bullet that's going to kill it.
164
462987
1999
07:56
There's no magic wand that's going to make it disappear.
165
464986
2566
07:59
I don't have an answer.
166
467552
1653
08:01
But I have some suggestions,
167
469205
1110
08:02
and here's my suggestion.
168
470315
3154
08:05
If we want to think of new kinds of arguments,
169
473469
2129
08:07
what we need to do is think of new kinds of arguers.
170
475598
4080
08:11
So try this.
171
479678
2814
08:14
Think of all the roles that people play in arguments.
172
482492
4610
08:19
There's the proponent and the opponent
173
487102
3001
08:22
in an adversarial, dialectical argument.
174
490103
2330
08:24
There's the audience in rhetorical arguments.
175
492433
2007
08:26
There's the reasoner in arguments as proofs.
176
494440
3916
08:30
All these different roles. Now, can you imagine an argument
177
498356
3677
08:34
in which you are the arguer, but you're also in the audience
178
502033
3739
08:37
watching yourself argue?
179
505772
2148
08:39
Can you imagine yourself watching yourself argue,
180
507920
2960
08:42
losing the argument, and yet still, at the end of the argument,
181
510880
3369
08:46
say, "Wow, that was a good argument."
182
514249
4576
08:50
Can you do that? I think you can.
183
518825
3110
08:53
And I think, if you can imagine that kind of argument
184
521935
1998
08:55
where the loser says to the winner
185
523933
1643
08:57
and the audience and the jury can say,
186
525576
1921
08:59
"Yeah, that was a good argument,"
187
527497
1983
09:01
then you have imagined a good argument.
188
529480
1803
09:03
And more than that, I think you've imagined
189
531283
1819
09:05
a good arguer, an arguer that's worthy
190
533102
3370
09:08
of the kind of arguer you should try to be.
191
536472
3089
09:11
Now, I lose a lot of arguments.
192
539561
2682
09:14
It takes practice to become a good arguer
193
542243
2575
09:16
in the sense of being able to benefit from losing,
194
544818
1937
09:18
but fortunately, I've had many, many colleagues
195
546755
2676
09:21
who have been willing to step up and provide that practice for me.
196
549431
3219
09:24
Thank you.
197
552650
1193
09:25
(Applause)
198
553843
4109
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Daniel H. Cohen - PhilosopherPhilosopher Daniel H. Cohen studies language and the way we argue through reason.
Why you should listen
Philosopher Daniel H. Cohen specializes in argumentation theory, the study of how we use reason (both verbally and in social contexts) to put forth potentially controversial standpoints. Cohen goes beyond just looking at how we plain ol' argue and looks specifically at the metaphors we use for this systematic reasoning. In his work Cohen argues for new, non-combatative metaphors for argument.
Cohen is a Professor of Philosophy at Colby College in Waterville, Maine.
Daniel H. Cohen | Speaker | TED.com