Choosing Between Several Compelling Arguments

Forums: Philosophy, Compelling Arguments
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Hi Philosophy Community,

How can I decide which opinion I should advocate and/or support when there are several opinions that each has compelling arguments, such as when voting for or against an economic reform or similarly?

I am often unable to decide upon an opinion, as I know that my knowledge of the subject is incomplete. I tend to try to weigh each side's argument as objectively as I can, but it often puts me in a situation where I cannot choose one side, which is required in practical choices such as elections and similar times when one has to make a choice, even though there probably are several good counter-arguments that one does not know of.

One of the reasons for this inability to choose is my perpetual questioning of the foundation on which the arguments are based on. This has serious practical consequences. For example, I cannot decide whether I should study psychology or not, as I am unsure of whether the conclusions in psychology can give us any significant more knowledge about the human mind and nature than what is achievable through pure reason and personal observations. As I cannot decide on such matters, which may not have any definite answers, or which may not be answerable with today's knowledge, I feel that I cannot move on. Another example is how one should vote in a case where a law that suggests more lenient punishments for grave criminal acts based on the assumption that many criminals cannot be held fully responsible for their crimes as their biology makes them prone to commit such crimes. In order to decide on the right choice in this case, one would (according to my current way of thinking) first have to answer the question of whether free will exists or not, which is an incredibly demanding and time-consuming question that probably does not have any clear answer. Therefore, I would be paralyzed in my actions, even though a decision is needed shortly.

Also, I fear that my conclusions, based on incomplete information, as in most cases, may be faulty, and cause harm to others. For example, if I lived during the 18th century, and the most compelling arguments available in the debate about homosexuality claims that homosexuality is a disease, and I would therefore vote for a proposition to sterilize homosexuals to keep the disease from spreading, I would be doing a huge mistake, even though all current information leaned towards voting for the proposition. In that case, there were arguments that I did not know of, and one could claim that I should not have acted at all. However, not acting because one lacks information obstructs progress, as one is incapable of acting.

Thank you very much for your help!

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 2 • Views: 822 • Replies: 6

No top replies

@tolus,

Good question. There are often no satisfactory answers but this begs the question of the meaning of "satisfactory" which implies a degree of confidence in "outcomes".

To take the case of psychology, for example, its "findings" should be evaluated pragmatically, rather than epistemologically, since its central (often ignored) problem involves an infinite regress of "the observation of observation" which resists "objective study". However this very point has been taken on board by "systems theorists" (Von Foerster et al) as a potential paradigm for behavioral interaction. Note also that constructivists such as Piaget, pointed to the limits of "logic" as merely one aspect of " adult thought".

From the philosophical point of view, two writers are significant in their attitude to dilemmas. Wittgenstein concluded that most so called "problems" were generated by "language games" in which different nuances of meaning were shifting around. "Problems" could dissipate if scrutiny of language took place. The later iconoclast, Derrida, argued that logical paradoxes (aporia) were endemic to all communication because any "privileging" of an argumentative position automatically was predicated on its negation.

IMO the significant conclusion is that social dynamics and shifting context ultimately serve to evaluate issues, rather than static logic based on fixed premises. Thus a "satisfactory answer" is at best "what works" in a particular context, and has no "objective status" in the sense of traditional science.

1 Reply

@tolus,

There's a few of factors I take into consideration that lead to one position over others:

1) Is it intuitive?

2) If not intuitive, are the concepts introduced by a position refer to their proper existents?

3) Does said position tie in with my experience in any way?

4) Is said position logically consistent? (Look up logical consistency if you don't know what it is)

To do any of this, you have to think for yourself and weigh the evidence. It's hard, but if you're going to be truly serious about choosing a position, it must be done.

Tbh, it's next to impossible to gather ALL the information, facts, or whatever to absolutely, conclusively,deduce that position X is the position to take. Why, you ask? Because we are finite rational beings. We only have so much to work with at any given time. I'm not saying that you should pick any position willy-nilly, but you can't sit around and wait for that extra premise or extra bit of evidence to come along to tip the scales in favor of a position.

Regarding the foundations of psychology or any other science, there will always be problems at the very foundation of each science. But that's okay. Why? Because once again, we are finite rational beings. We can only do some much at a given time. Perhaps the problems in psychology will be rectified later on, perhaps not. Or maybe the problems will be ignored simply because those problems were transcended by asking the right questions.

I think your problem is that you are trying to go for a God's eye view of the world. Tbh, you can't do that, and never will. Not trying to discourage you, just point out that you're going about choosing between arguments the wrong way.

Hope this helps. Smile

1 Reply

@fresco,

Thank you very much for your answer! However, I found it troublesome to understand, or as it felt to me, decipher, the reply, as I have not yet come to the point in my philosophical studies where I am familiar with most of the philosophical terms. The fact that I am not a native English speaker further complicates the matter. Therefore, even though it might seem silly, I will break down your concise response into smaller, more childlike, comprehensible pieces, and you can decide whether you would like to spend further time on this topic or not.

Quote:

There are often no satisfactory answers but this begs the question of the meaning of "satisfactory" which implies a degree of confidence in "outcomes".

If I got this right, you are saying that "there are no satisfactory answers" to my question, and then you go into an explanation of the word satisfactory, which you believe might not be a suitable word to describe what the answer to my questions will be like. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Secondly,

Quote:

[psychology'] central (often ignored) problem involves an infinite regress of "the observation of observation" which resists "objective study"

Do you by this bring up the problem that one of psychology's main problem is that scientists draw conclusions about the mind based on the participant's descriptions of their mind, instead of directly accessing what happens inside the mind and actually seeing their cognitive processes?

If that is correct, then I do not understand why

Quote:

its "findings" should be evaluated pragmatically, rather than epistemologically

. Is it because the psychological method will always be flawed, and that there only option therefore is to accept the current situation and just go along with its uncorrectable flaws?

Unfortunately, I could not find anything about Von Foerster and "a potential paradigm for behavioral interaction". Could you refer to any sources?

Quote:

Note also that constructivists such as Piaget, pointed to the limits of "logic" as merely one aspect of " adult thought".

Do you by this mean that Piaget pointed out that logic is insufficient on its own, and requires empirical support? Google searches for Piaget only drowns me in a sea with information about his theory of cognitive development.

Regarding the third paragraph about "the philosophical point of view", I will have to do more research.

Quote:

IMO the significant conclusion is that social dynamics and shifting context ultimately serve to evaluate issues, rather than static logic based on fixed premises. Thus a "satisfactory answer" is at best "what works" in a particular context, and has no "objective status" in the sense of traditional science.

Could you please elaborate this, or put it in simpler terms? I am spotting something about that the answers to my questions are not objective, but apart from that I must admit I'm a bit lost.

Thank you once again for you help,

Tolus

1 Reply

@tolus,

You should act if it will positively help a good person with their life.

If you don't act knowing that if you did act it would positively help a good person with their life then you're not sincerely a good person.

I'm sure you have the idea/understanding.

0 Replies

@Ding an Sich,

I agree with your four points, but I'd add Occam's Razor if more than one argument passes through those filters.

Rap

0 Replies

@tolus,

Sorry for belated reply. Away last week.

By "pragmatic, I mean that the "findings" psychology should be viewed as part of social decision making process(...educational funding....mental health...recruitment) rather than adding to a body of what we call "scientific knowledge". At best they can give statistical trends on which to rationalize management decisions. They "work" in those contexts. Concepts like "the mind" are nebulous lay constructs which fall apart on attempts at precise definition. For example, Freudian concepts of mind like id, ego , projection etc were to "work" in the context of middle class neurotic Vienna in the early 20th century. By "working", they provided a possible vocabulary for interaction between so-called "patient" and "therapist".

"Systems Theory" was the substrate for Von Foerster's " second order cybernetics" (aka "the observation of observation") . For applications to biological, psychological and social systems you should perhaps refer to Maturana's application of Von Foerster's ideas to "cognition". This essentially deflates "thinking" to a form of systems behavior called "languaging".

In order to get a handle on "systems theory" you have to be prepared to relinquish the idea of "an individual thinking person" and replace it as an element (chess piece ?) to a a set of nested interacting systems (layered chess games ?). The analogy is with "the body". Just as a particular organ cannot be understood without reference to the functioning of the whole, nor can "a self" be understood outside its "world". Self and world are co-extensive and co-existent. Neither has ontological status or definition without the other.(Piaget understood this mutual interdependence but could use "logic" to explain it since "logical thought" was one of its sub-processes).

Apologies if this fails the simplicity test. Counter-intuitive stuff usually does !
To approximately quote one eminent cognitive scientist who has taken this stuff on board, "so far so called "brain science" has got to about the same level as correlating knee problems with strength of belief in genuflecting Catholics".

0 Replies

Choosing Between Several Compelling Arguments

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know