How do you argue against someones dogma [axiom--not necessarily religious]?

Great Debates
1

I am a liberal squish, I have some views that some might consider conservative, but I am at my core fairly liberal. My problem when having arguments with conservatives (and some liberals where I disagree) is that I feel like there is an entire universe of “baggage” lying beneath the surface that is influencing the debate that is never directly addressed.
A case in point occurred today with an article on wired about the FCC’s move on title II and net neutrality.

Please check out some of the comments there, particularly those opposed to the move to reclassify ISPs as common carriers. A lot of the animus towards the move stems from what I describe as anti government bigotry.

A sentiment that seems to drive people to think any regulation under the sun is inherently destructive, because government is involved.

Now I see this attitude as sub-mental in its thoughtlessness, but an enormous number of people argue this way, and believe it to their core. It would be one thing if people were making a case against the regulations on more specific grounds, and some do. But even there you get the sense that many of the assumptions behind the negative consequences are based on their own conservative dogma about governments role and the problems that arise because of it. Others don’t even try to offer the pretense of an objective argument over actual results, and just start yammering on about communism and socialism. Arguments made for the policy that address specific problems with our current market fly right past such people as total nonsense. I don’t even think they consider the arguments because the first test failed. Is government involved? Regulations increasing = check. And that is ALL they need to know.

This is dogma pure and simple, very similar in kind to religious dogma, and I have no idea how to deal with it. I feel like the only possible way to crack the shell and speak the same language is to try and peel away the layers upon layers of assumptions about the world that they have and I don’t, but that seems like a tireless task, like I’d be trying to sweep the sand from the desert.

So how do you deal with that? How do you make a case and have the other person understand and hear and accept or reject you arguments for what they are without ignoring them due to their own baggage of beliefs about the world?

2

If you’re talking about something fact based and they show willingness to learn, that’s one thing. Many, many people have changed their mind about climate change/global warming etc (and even not so much fact based things such as their views on homosexuality).

However, when it comes to things like political stance or faith, you’re truly better off not trying to change their mind. I mean, having a nice debate about whether or not your town should do this or that is one thing, but trying to get your staunch republican friend to vote democrat likely isn’t going to happen anymore than you getting a 60 year old church going Christian to shun their faith because there’s no science behind it.
You may have a little bit of traction if you can convince someone that their “facts” are just opinions/falsifications/speaking points from their political/faith leaders, but IMO, if you aren’t getting anywhere you’re better off leaving that alone or you push them further into it. That is, if you try to tell someone (for example) that [some republican] is lying about climate change, there’s a good chance your friend isn’t going to listen to you, label YOU the liar and cling to his beliefs even more.
Keep in mind, your republican friend doesn’t care about the “little stuff” like who can get married and how the homeless eat, so long as he pays less in taxes. To the Republican, the liberals don’t care about the ‘little stuff’ like how much they pay in taxes, so long as unions have more power and there’s less guns on the street.
Everyone sort of argues past each other and when they hit on the same topic they’re more likely to butt heads and maybe even compromise, but no one is changing their core values over it.

TL;DR, you’re not going to change the world by getting an individual to let go of his dogma and IMHO, it’s just not worth the argument. Live and let live.

3

Offer a different narrative with an abundance of historical examples. This takes effort.

Against a more sophisticated opponent it’s basically impossible. Have you ever seen a debate between two economic bloggers? Or sometimes on this board. It goes something like: well in Canada in 1950 they tried to do blah blah oh but post-war Spain shows that to be wrong because blah blah, ad infinitum. Even focusing on a single case doesn’t lead anywhere. Take the 2008 crash. Some think it was a result of not enough regulation, others too much! Good luck cutting that knot.

People seem to be at their most vulnerable when their dogma is failing in real time in a really blatant way, but even then there are a whole host of defense mechanisms that make it hard to punch through the shell. Blame, deflect, make excuses, the people who tried it didn’t know what they were doing, it doesn’t count because of mitigating factors…good luck.

4

You seem to be using “dogma” (a truth set down by an authority) to mean “axiom” (an assumed truth from which reasoning proceeds). If someone starts from an assumption that governments are not trustworthy, then that is an axiom, not a dogma.

You can’t really argue against an axiom, since it is the foundation of the argument. You can try to argue that the axiom is erroneous, but that’s a totally separate argument.

It’s also usually very hard to do. While you might think that governments are trustworthy and don’t generally move down a slippery and be able to present evidence to that effect, they will believe the opposite and have just as many examples that are just as good.

5

Run it over with your karma.

6

You’re right, axiom is probably a better word because there does not need to be some authority from on high declaring something to be true.
That said, I think they function similarly when it comes to political ideas about the world. Axiom just seems like a more secular form of dogma when talking about peoples core ideas and principles of conceptions of the world.

I think the idea that government is inherently bad as a sort of axiomatic core of a political ideology is nonsensical. In my view government can be good/bad/or neutral. I need to know more specifics about the specific regulation or policy, but perhaps even there I reveal my own irreparable discord with others. I am working off the assumption that people can be moved in the same way I am, moved by a sort of consequentialism about policy and effects. A law can be good or bad in my view only insofar as its effects can be characterized as good or bad. There is no room for axioms of the sort that government action is destructive by default, or good by default. It is so outside my own conception of a proper standard of analysis that I can’t even begin to comprehend why others treat such statements as self evident.

There may be more general axioms about the world that I believe in, but THAT is not one of them. Perhaps I only need one clear example where some government policy or constraint is seen as OK is what is needed. But even there I’ve run into problems.

I created an account on some libertarian forum to argue with them. And offered an example of government “redistribution” so benign that even THEY could not reject it. Some of them, most of them rejected it. What was it? Having the state pay for k-12 education either through public schools or vouchers. Either case would necessarily engage in income redistribution as poorer families would not be paying in enough into the system to cover the cost of educating their kids. But surely even the libertarians would allow for THAT tiny bit of redistribution right? Mostly, no, at least not there.
There were two types of objections, one reachable, one impossible to treat with.

The first type tried to make a case that an all private system of education would get the costs of education so low that even poor families would be able to pay, and there would not be the sorts of gaps that sent kids from poor families out of k-12 schooling. I think that assumption is ludicrous, but it’s still an empirical prediction that can be falsified.

The second objection was the unreachable type, some of those libertarians actually made the case that it was NEVER ok to use the state to take money from people to use for services. They bring up the notion that the state using force to tax incomes for other purposes is NEVER OK. Not because it produces worse results, because… just because. A sort of dogma or axiom built into their very psyches against state power.
There always seems to be a wall beyond which I cannot find a strong enough tool to break through. At that point I usually resort to name calling, what kind of “fool” thinks that way, but that is more a sign of the futility of the discussion and my own inability to break through.

7

Yes, and in many cases I simply do not have the depth of knowledge necessary to mount an effective take down of a flawed idea. I can imagine the types of examples that would show why their thought process is problematic, but like most people, I am a lay person with most things.

8

Futility. Not everyone places the same values on the balance of logic / reason, feelings / emotion, depth / focus, etc/etc that you do. It’s a core disconnect that undercuts any linguistic (conscious?) arguments you can make. Like Joey P said, live and let live. Or - suck it up. Deal with it. Get straight. Go forward. Move ahead. Try to detect it. It’s not too late.

(…it’s really a part of maturation. The softening your stances, against the conviction of your principles. Or more lofty shit like that.)

9

If only I could.

Internet Wrong

10

Credit where credit is due

xkcd

(also, read the alternative text - mouse over the image)

11

Indeed, because the facts are not going to make one bit of difference.

In fact, studies have found the more facts you shove at somebody, the less they will even pay attention to you.

12

Salvor, from what you post, it seem that you are failing to understand your opponents and see their beliefs in light of their own. you are also demonising and strawmanning them to a degree.

Nobody ever said that government is inherently bad, and everybody but the most hard-core anarchist believes that government can be good/bad/or neutral. Yet you speak about this view as though only you hold this view, and you can’t make your opponents see why it is so sensible. Of course that is a strawman and a heapin’ helpin’ of demonisation. Everybody agrees with those sentiments. The most hard core Communists, Libertarians, Fascists and so forth all believe those things.

Where you differ from your opponents is in their belief that governments are inherently untrustworthy and that granting governments more control over the day-to-day life of its citizens is something that should be granted very rarely and only when there is a compelling reason to do so. Only by doing this can a government be *made *neutral or good. The more power a government has, the less likely it is to be good.

But you mischaracterise this as “these people believe that governments are destructive by default”. Nope. Nobody believes that.

The second problem seems to be that you are failing to see your opponents through the light of your own experience. This is almost always coupled to mischaracterisation and demonisation.

You seems baffled by the idea that people can believe that “the state using force to tax incomes for other purposes is NEVER OK.” But that is what an axiom is: it’s an assumption from which all else proceeds. Any philosophical viewpoint *must * rest upon such axioms.

Did you ever consider that you hold to your axioms in exactly the same way?

Do you oppose the death penalty because the state executing even a small subset of innocent people is NEVER OK. Not because it produces worse results, because… just because?

Would you really support a return to generational slavery if I could demonstrate to you that it produced better results? Or do you believe that the state allowing a child to be born to a life of bondage is NEVER OK. Not because it produces worse results, because… just because?

And so on and so forth.

Of course you believe things like that. You must, otherwise you wouldn’t have any philosophical standpoint to argue. Your philosophical position in these debates is just as embedded in absolutist axioms as anybody else. The only difference is the axioms that you proceed from.

Yet despite this, you say that you are utterly baffled because your opponent proceeds from absolutist axioms. That leads me to either or both of the following conclusions.

The first is that you have never attempted to see your opponents position in light of you own experience. If that is the case, then you will never be able to discuss these issues with them in a civilised manner. Your mindset is just too different from theirs to enable you to understand them. The only way that you can understand someone with a mindset radically different from your own is to look at their views in light of your own experience. In this case you need to start from a very basic position of admitting that you, just like them and like every other person that has ever lived, have built your philosophy on arbitrary, absolutist axioms. Once you do that, then you can move to a position where you can say “I can understand how you can believe that. I don’t agree with it, but I can see how you believe it”. You need to reach that point before you can argue an issue with anybody.

But the first step is rid yourself of this bafflement that somebody can believe that something is morally NEVER OK, not because it produces worse results, but simply because. You believe things like that yourself, and once you accept that your bafflement that others can believe similar but different things will vanish.

My second conclusion is that you utterly reject the validity of your opponent’s axioms, but that you have no compelling reason for doing so. I reach this conclusion because if you had a compelling reason for rejecting the axiom, it would be trivially easy to produce that reason and proceed with the real debate. but you don’t do that. You just look baffled that anyone can adhere to the axiom

We’ve all been where you are: arguing with someone who simply does not accept the same axioms that we do. That’s just the way the world is. These are moral issues, and any axiom is arbitrary. Someone who starts from the axiom that life begins at conception isn’t any more right than an iron-age Norwegian who believes that life begins when a child is given a name, and that abortion up to the 9th trimester is perfectly OK. These are axioms and one isn’t better than the other. They are all arbitrary.

You *can *argue about the axioms, but you don’t want to do that. You want to argue the *conclusion *that proceeds from them, then act baffled when you discover that your opponent has bee arguing from absolutist axioms. You can’t do that. An argument is a good way to discover what our underlying absolutist axioms are, since few of us can articulate them. At that point we can argue the axioms. But what you can not do is argue a logical conclusion that flows from “governments are untrustworthy and must be limited as far as possible” and then reject the argument because you are shocked that someone is arguing from that axiom.

That’s not honest and it’s not logically valid.

13

Indeed.

14

Holy shit, post #12 should be bronzed, stickied, and made the subject of a required course for all high schoolers.

Awesome post, Blake.

15

Something else to consider. If they really believe what they’re saying (not adhering to them for other reasons), then they’re thinking all these same things about you. How can I get him to change his mind? Why won’t he listen to reason? What the hell is he talking about? Does he really believe this garbage? That’s part of the reason why you’re butting heads.
Sometimes you need to look at things from the other side. If they feel the same way about their side as you do about your side and you’re not going to change…why waste your breath trying to get them to change?

16

Or set you catma on it

17

If the axiom is makes claims on objective reality, than you could attempt to argue that the axiom is fundementally wrong. For example a conservative who is convinced that lower taxation always leads to higher revenue could theoretically be convinced that he was wrong. However if the axiom is truly philosphical such as they having the axiom that the sole morality of government is to prevent coercion, vs you having the view that that government should have a role in assisting those who fail to prosper on their own, then factual argument won’t help.

In the case of philosophical the next option is to try to first make them recognize that their axiom is really more of an opinion than a fact, and so that any arguments that uses this as a starting point will not be any more convincing to you than quotes from the Koran will be to a Christian, and you should recognize likewise with regard to your set of axioms (the negation of another’s axiom is itself an axiom). Thus any continuing discussion will need to be made without appeal to competing axioms. For example, arguing on practical grounds whether a certain welfare change will or will not reduce the unemployment rate without reference to governments fundamental role.

However, if the entire argument really does come down to which set of philosophical axioms you take, then all you can do is agree to disagree.

18

ETA: I just noticed that there is one final legitimate way to fight an axiom system, which is to prove that the person’s axiom system is self contradictory. If you can prove for example that a government whose only actions are to prevent coercion will by necessity be coercive, than you may be able to convince him that his axiom system needs to be adjusted to as to be self consistent.

19

People rarely win arguments over deeply held beliefs. But in any argument on a public forum, you are arguing in front of people who hold a range of beliefs that go from your opponent’s to yours. The people who will be influenced by good, rational arguments are the ones who are between you and your opponent. You win if your arguments convince them even if you do not sway your opponent, because you decrease the number of people who share your opponent’s beliefs, rendering their beliefs less powerful in society.

Of course, if you can convince them through lies and misdirection, you win, too. Hence, Fox News.

20

I do not, myself. I find rigid morality nonsensical and view everything through the lens of pragmatism – for example, capital punishment is not morally wrong, it is dysfunctional, ineffective and perhaps even counter-productive from a real-world, sociological/behaviorist perspective. Moral wrongness is itself wrong, because every situation is unique and needs to be dealt with as it stands rather than with cookie-cutter axioms that may not fit right.