EPTDebates on internet forums have become a major medium for discussion. The ultimate goal is to convince all sides that your own views are true, or at the very least, to educate the opposition of their faulty logic. But what is the true incidence of success and satisfaction derived from such debates? In almost all cases, each side is steadfastly locked on their opinion, and unwilling to change their position. It seems participating in such an argument is a trial in patience and stamina, until one side grows tired of the argument and realizes the futility of the exercise.
I shall give a background of my own attitudes towards conflict. I grew up in an environment where my parents never got along. They were constantly fighting and bickering over every small thing. As a child, I considered myself still too young to interfere with adult business, and stayed out of their arguments. As my brothers grew older, they began to have some rebellious tendencies of typical teenage nature, which was another source of conflict in the household. I was rarely involved. Instead I turned to my computer games and ignored all the screaming and yelling. Many nights I would lie on my bed, trying to sleep through another raucous shouting match, apparently not interested in the issue and never bothering to get in the way. I was most annoyed that the majority of issues were small, trivial matters that escalated quickly into broken glass and holes in the walls I would find the next morning. I blame these experiences as having a large impact on my personality today.
Since I had gotten into the habit of staying out of the conflict, I never became an avid participant in arguments or debates. I would judge from a distance and draw my own conclusions on who was right or wrong. I have a strong tendency to avoid confrontational conflict, often at my own expense.
Inspired by the “true cause of extinction” thread on global warming, the chance of convincing the opposition to one’s own viewpoint is dismal and absolutely. Surely no one truly expects the other side to cave in, on an internet forum no less. Why even bother with trying so hard?
One major problem inherent in such a debate is the use of supporting facts to back up the respective arguments. Take the claim that “the overwhelming consensus of the science community is in support of man-made global warming”. Firstly, who exactly are the people who qualify as the science experts on the matter? Perhaps the geologists and climatologists or whatever other discipline that studies these areas. But it seems to me these fields are more about collecting data on various factors and analyzing trends and forecasting patterns. A distinction should be made between researchers and scientists. Pure science should be backed by the results and observations of replicable experiments. The venerable fields of physics, chemistry, and to a lesser extent biology, have their origins in the scientific method and have produced some very elegant conclusions.
However, when applying this knowledge to a very complex system of natural weather systems, results are less replicable and innumerable variables come into play. Applied science in geology and climatology or whatever else is still relatively new. The statistics people gather are directly from the field of nature and not easily reproducible in a lab. Hence any conclusions drawn from such research can be easily skewed by interpreters to suit whatever agenda they already have in mind.
Global warming is a special issue because of it is heavily influenced by political and media directives. Experts who speak against man-made global warming (ie. deny its impact) are quickly discredited and face immense pressures from the community. But as history has shown, the majority is not always correct.
Thus it can be said that the only time I would bother pointing out my arguments is when I feel that the audience can be influenced by my words. Arguing when you know the opposition will not budge is pointless and wasteful. In fact, this is the logic I often adopt: my opposition is wrong in their beliefs. They are at a disadvantage, while I hold the correct viewpoint. If I use my efforts to enlighten them on their position, I lose my competitive advantage. Thus I can benefit from exploiting their ignorance, leaving them in the dark while forging ahead myself.
This of course is not applicable when the issue affects a public good, such as the environment. Then debate must take place, but sometimes, an infinite amount of persuasion still fails to change the minds of those locked in their beliefs. Ultimately it is up to the leader’s decisions that make the difference in what is accomplished.
Kinda weird I'm writing an essay here for no reason. Whatever, maybe the next one will be more interesting.
