CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND DEBATE

Before I really get started, I want to correct something. The OMG book, Cadillac Desert which I recommended, was written by Mark Reisner.

As I was listening and watching today to a couple of commentators, I was struck by how even people who should know better fail to properly challenge people and/or fail to engage in critical analysis and debate. So, I thought that I would include some pointers for times when you are engaging in debate with someone of another outlook, whatever that may be.

First, become informed. As I mentioned before, the answer to almost anything is never more than a couple of mouse clicks away. I heard Stephanie Miller, a radio talk show host, say about six months ago, "facts have that well-known liberal bias." This is so true; I am never afraid to argue on the basis of facts because facts overwhelmingly support my point of view. It's why I have my point of view, I base my opinions on facts, not beliefs.

If you don't know the facts, don't try to fake it, just say you'll look into it and do the research. Similarly, don't take assertions by others on face value. As it has been said before (by Senator Moynihan I believe), everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Also, you will often find problems with the sources that your opponent cited. Someone gave me a reference arguing that FDR's policies didn't make any economic progress. When I read the article, I found that the authors compared the US economy in 1940 with that in 1929, before the crash. From 1929 to 1933 the US GDP dropped 42%, so if you don't take that into account, then FDR's policies weren't successful. In short, that argument was totally bogus since it ignored the crash and a 42% drop.

This gets to the next point--challenge facts, assertions, and assumptions. Most people don't know what they are talking about or else get their information from a single, often unreliable source. You don't have to be obnoxious, just say, "Where did you get that information, I'd like to look into it myself." Other challenges include, "Did you consider all the variables? Which are dependent and which are independent variables? What evidence is there that there is a cause and effect relationship?." Don't let the other side oversimplify. Most social/political problems are complex and can't properly be reduced to simple answers. Here's another example. If someone says Obama is a socialist, you can ask--what kind? A Leninist, a Stalinist, a Maoist, a Fabian, a Utopian, a social democrat, or something else? And what policies of his qualify him as that type? You don't have to know the answer, but put the pressure on them to give specific evidence to back up their claims.

Don't let the other side frame the debate. Here's a good example I hear/read often. "Al Gore doesn't know what he's talking about and he's just trying to make a lot of money with global warming." They want the issue to be Al Gore, not the science or the scientists. Is it Al Gore who came up with the idea of global warming? The answer is no, he just publicized what scientists have been saying for decades. The argument is with climate scientists, not Al Gore. Al Gore was born rich and made a ton of money with his cable channel, he doesn't need more money. Also, who has more at stake, fossil fuel companies who have hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue every year, or independent scientists and alternative energy companies who have maybe one thousandth as much at stake? So, tell me, how are climate scientist wrong, and what is your educational background that allows you to make an informed judgment as to the accuracy of their work?

Other common things which conservatives do include using straw men and improper conflation or comparison. A straw man argument is picking out an example and using that to claim that it represents the views of a whole group. They usually will take something outrageous, so the answer is to say, "I don't agree with that, what evidence do you have that it represents the opinion of the majority of (fill in the group--liberals, Democrats, politicians, whatever)? Always put the onus on the other person to provide evidence to support their argument; don't let them get away with unsupported assertions.

Conflation means saying that if one thing is so, then so is another thing. An example would be "Since Democrats don't support off shore drilling, they want us to pay more for oil." First, not all Democrats oppose off shore drilling. Second, you can say that Democrats who don't support off shore drilling support alternatives that are less damaging to the environment and thus less expensive in the long run. If this spill is going to cost billions of dollars to clean up and destroy thousands of jobs in the gulf coast, how is that saving us money? Why can't we use natural gas, which we have in abundance on land, instead of oil, for a lot of things? Challenge the assumptions and then point out alternatives and make it clear that one thing does not necessarily equate to another thing.

I read a recent example of unfair comparison that was actually published in the New York Times. The writer said that Obama is engaging in "vilification" even though he calls for bipartisanship. His examples include Obama complaints about the health care companies, Wall Street, and big oil. First, in what way were Obama's criticisms incorrect? Is it vilification to criticize policies that damage the country? Remember, truth is the ultimate defense. Secondly, this author wants the reader to equate Obama's criticism with that of his opponents who have branded him a Nazi, a socialist, someone who wants the terrorists to win, etc. (see my previous post on the views of rank and file Republicans) How many times have we heard the charges that Democrats are unpatriotic , don't love our country, and /or are soft on terror? And yet conservatives would try to equate complaints about policies with these types of personal attacks.

Another common tactic is to compare apples and oranges. I don't think I need to give an example as this is a common tactic and yet, people get away with it all the time. Always insist that comparisons are of the same things.

Next, there is the throw the baby out with the bathwater argument that is made often and rarely challenged. Another way to put it is to differentiate between concept, structure, and execution. For example, for a government program to succeed, you need a useful concept, a workable structure, and good execution. If any one of these things is lacking, you can have failure or only partial success. The usual conservative response is to deny the validity of the concept even if the problem is the structure or the execution. A good example was on the Hardball Show today with Chris Matthews. Arizona just passed a law banning ethnic studies classes in public schools in the state. Speaking in favor was the state superintendent of schools for Arizona, opposed was a professor from Columbia University. The state superintendent cited a passage from a textbook saying that Latinos were oppressed. So they argued over whether or not that was a bad thing to teach, but no one raised the question, "Have Latinos ever been oppressed in the United States?" In other words, was it inaccurate? Even more importantly, if the problem is a couple of different passages in a textbook, why not revise the textbook or get another textbook? They never addressed the basic question of what is the purpose of ethnic studies, is it a valuable purpose and, if it isn't, can it be changed so that it is? If the problem is the execution and/or the structure, why not get a better textbook, issue specific guidelines on how to teach the course, and make sure that those teaching it are qualified? Banning that type of class is a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Finally, a very common approach is to classify an anecdote as a fact. In the above argument, the superintendent stated how one student said that after an ethnic studies class she concluded that Latinos were oppressed and she hadn't thought that before. Nobody asked, "Have you done any studies to see how common this attitude is? Do other students have different opinions or results? One anecdote does not make a fact or a trend and yet most people will accept it as one. Challenge them to provide evidence that the anecdote represents reality, or is it just one person's experience (as is often the case). This morning I had a woman tell me that he daughter was paying 56% in income tax. I explained to her that the top Federal rate is 35% and gave her other data. Yet people continue to believe propaganda and anecdotes. We need to challenge the misinformation whenever and wherever possible.

One of the biggest problems today, in my opinion, is the lack of critical thinking and analysis. I hope this provides you with some ideas on how to challenge bogus arguments.