Elevating the Debate

If you are one who seeks the truth, outside of any political or politically correct narrative, then I will assume that you (also) are disappointed (or absolutely apalled) at the nature of the public debate.  The liberties on logic taken by those behind the mic to make their point inspire nothing but skepticism.  I am currently reading a wonderful book, Team of Rivals, by Doris Kearns Goodwin that (in addition to remaining as unbiased as possible) lays out in well researched detail Lincoln's rise to power and his political genius of enrolling friends and adversaries alike into his cause.  Of particular note is the nature of structure, rules and logic demanded in debate by the mid 19th century public.  Lincoln won points by extolling his audience to follow his logic as he deconstructed the premises of his opponents stated positions.   It is hard to accept how far we have fallen in the last 150 years and that we now live in an age of short attention spans, gossip TV, one liners and 'gotchas.'  Indeed, in the book Goodwin lays out a great point  -- that the attention audiences invested in structured political debate in Lincoln's time is now reserved for sporting events!   Finally, I thought this email, from a friend, whom I will keep anonymous, was an excellent checklist on the high side of debate....


There are very strict rules about debate and presentation of opposing views that have worked for years to keep order and to elevate the level of discourse. I would like to remind everyone about relevant rules. Not just in the Climate discussion but any time you want to elevate a dialog.


Often truth can be figured out just by judging the debate.

1. Any character assassination means the assassin immediately loses.

2. “My experts” are better than “your experts” without further definition is a waste of time and points are lost.

3. The use of “everyone agrees” when they don’t disqualifies the assertion and casts a pawl over the speaker.  In general I have found that anyone using that assertion is wrong, lying, or biased and that hypothesis upon which the assertion is made is wrong and that the use of the assertion is to stop inquiry about the counter argument.

4. Always separate questions of fact from questions of belief. Facts can be verified, compared or discussed separately from belief assertions.

5. Never confuse correlation and causality. The jump from a correlation to causality is huge. Most science is involved justifying that jumping that chasm. In general the weaker the expert the easier they will make the jump.  Good science is very careful about the jump.

6. Never ascribe big outcomes from small things when there are other items that are larger and more important in the same system. (This one comes from engineering training not debate but I thought I would throw it in.)

7. Announce your personal biases and examine them yourself. A good exercise is to argue for the position you do not favor and often it is amazingly enlightening.

8. Mistrust crowds, groups, committees, politicians, preachers, and the consensual agreement.

9. No one has a right to an uninformed opinion -- "what do you know and how do you know it?"

 -- Storm