The old adage is that in any social gathering it's bad manners to introduce either religion or politics into the discussion. It may be true that these two topics are unwelcome, yet it's hard to imagine anything that could be more important to discuss. That they're considered taboo says more, perhaps, about the shallowness of much of our social interaction than it does about the topics themselves.
In any case, those who do engage in serious conversation and debate, one would hope, are paramountly concerned with finding and sharing the truth about whatever it is that's being deliberated, but they're often tempted to adopt a number of less-than-helpful tactics that do more to bring discredit upon themselves and the views they advocate than they do to promote the truth.
Some years ago I came across a blog post titled Ten Signs of Intellectual Honesty which listed ten good rules to follow when participating with others in dialogue.
Since the link to this post no longer works I'll take the liberty to list the ten rules along with some brief thoughts on them. They're very much worth heeding for anyone who wishes to participate in the conversations, especially those bearing on religion and/or politics, that are occurring in our public square.
Here they are:
1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One's sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence that most people can assess. If someone portrays his opponents as being stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.
2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.
3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one's own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when trying to make sense of the world, and all of us bring various biases to the table. We should be open and honest about it.
4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak. Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points. Refusing to admit a weakness in your argument damages your credibility. People are more likely to warm to your view if you're honest about where it falters.
5.Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Just as we should be open about weak spots in our convictions we should be willing to acknowledge that we were wrong about something if, in fact, we were. Ideologues, especially, find this a very difficult thing to do because admitting to being wrong undercuts their rhetoric and the image they're trying to promote. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivial.
6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. We see this a lot in our news media and political debates. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues' allies.
7. Address the argument instead of the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. When someone resorts to insulting his opponent, often by relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and superficially innocent-sounding "gotcha" questions, they're revealing the inadequacy of their own arguments and trying to deflect attention away from that inadequacy.
8. Be careful not to misrepresent your opponent's argument. Misrepresenting an argument in order to make it look weaker and easier to defeat is called the "straw man" fallacy. Straw man often occurs when people are quoted out-of-context or are paraphrased incorrectly. When critiquing an argument one should show that one has made a good faith effort to both understand it and to represent it in its strongest form.
9. Demonstrate a commitment to critical thinking. It's important that we assign a high level of importance to evidence. Someone who holds adamantly to their position but who can give no reason for their tenacity nor allow evidence-based reasons to count against their position, is not a critical thinker and will not be taken seriously.
10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when one's opponent has made a good point or criticism. If someone is unwilling to admit that his opponent has made a telling point or an incisive criticism it demonstrates an unwillingness to honestly engage in the give-and-take of dialogue.
My own experience has been that even when I think I'm doing the best I can to abide by the rules described above I still sometimes find myself teetering close to the boundary. Luckily, I have friends and students among my readers who are not shy about calling me on it when they think I've transgressed. Sometimes I think they're wrong, but sometimes not.
I think it's wise to keep in mind that none of us is perfect and to watch carefully how we express ourselves in discussions on matters we feel strongly about. Years ago I printed out these Ten Signs of Intellectual Honesty and have them posted over my computer.
Maybe it would be a good idea for all of us to do that.
