Why, while building an argument, it is not enough to search for evidence that supports our position.
One of the principles of scientific discovery is that for a proposition or a theory to be accepted as truth, it should be “falsifiable.” Simply put, the theory should be critically and rigorously examined through a systematic se arch for evidence that challenges its basic assumptions and its predictions. This idea is attributed to early twentieth century philosopher Karl Popper. It’s a somewhat complicated idea, and, most certainly, I have no intention of writing a column about the philosophy of science! However, I’d like to explore how we can use this idea to build and support an argument we want to make — in science, in social studies, in the humanities, or any field for that matter. Even in our debates with friends on issues of contemporary relevance.
If I haven’t lost you yet, let’s go back to the idea of falsification, which asks that we test every idea by scrutinising it carefully and questioning it from every possible angle. In fact, we should try to knock down the idea as hard as we can. If it still stands at the end of that severe beating, then we have an idea we can defend.
What does all this have to do with academic work, or with debating, or anything? We might think that such procedures only have to do with the experimental sciences, where we can challenge claims with further experimentation. How does it relate to fields that are about vague, abstract issues such as politics or literature?
For the past few weeks, my university campus has been caught up in a storm of protest, where competing ideologies (and ideas) have been facing off and where everyone is shouting themselves hoarse defending their ideas. The result is that few are listening carefully and even fewer are examining what is being said. This is compounded by the fact that we spend so much time online. Because of the way social media works, we are surrounded by networks that either amplify what we say or provide a sort of comfortable affirmation of our viewpoint. Occasionally a completely opposite viewpoint might surface, but only because it has been referred to or commented upon by someone from the first position. For the most part, we surround ourselves with people who think like us and ideas that we are comfortable with. When we meet an opposing view, or meet a group of people who think differently, very often we react with hostility, or emotionally, and end up arguing for our point of view from a very defensive position.
Most often, we search for information that supports our position and look for evidence that can “prove” what we are saying. In other words, we are doing the exact opposite of what Popper suggested. By only looking for what supports our point, we run the danger of overlooking information that could pose a challenge — and therefore miss the opportunity to (1) consider the alternative view, and (2) strengthen one’s own argument.
This is not to say that we shouldn’t look for corroborating information. That is important and must be done. After all, you can’t make an argument without drawing on supporting facts and examples, or even evidence drawn from other people who are saying the same thing. But once you’ve done that, you have to go about looking at your argument critically, in ways that your opponent would, from many different angles, with the aim of falsifying it.
How does one go about doing this? It’s similar to building an armour and then looking for the chinks in it, so that you can fix them before someone attacks you. Or the ways in which ethical hackers test a software programme to ensure it is secure. With ideas and arguments, the process is a bit more complex as the gaps are not always visible to us, especially when it concerns a subject that we are deeply involved in or have some investment in.
Critical examination of an argument means that we have to take it apart carefully, tear it open in the way an opponent would, and see how, point by point, it can be challenged. For every point that you are making in support of your argument, ask the counter question. So for every “why”, pose a “why not” or for every “why this,” ask “why not this” and “why not something else.” It’s also important not to restrict this exploration to simple oppositional positions. There are usually many more positions in between and you need to examine these as well.
With all the information (and even more opinion) that’s available on the Internet, it is possible for us to look at a particular topic in a variety of ways. What it takes is a bit of a shift in the way we look for information. Our usual approach is to look for something that “proves” or “supports” what we want to say.
But to take the critical approach, you need to also look carefully for material that challenges what you want to say. If you educate yourself about the different arguments and the counter points, you can be better prepared to speak to the other side. You can build an argument that is convincing not only to yourself and those who think like you, but also be more convinced and confident.
