Supported Assertions
Somewhere over the course of schooling, we’re taught to read and write and present arguments in favor of our point of view. This education was once in its most concentrated form in English 101 and 102 at the freshman level of college. The painful part was often trying hard to have an opinion about stuff that didn’t seem to merit it—at least not from the perspective of the put-upon college undergrad.
We are taught to make an argument in favor of our opinion by assembling evidence in support of that opinion. Ideally, we will also manage to find and present evidence against any competing opinions. And this is reflective of how our modern industrial society works, based on how it is supposed to think. It is the approach that is foundational to our science, society, and civilization.
Another term that is used for finding evidence in support of your opinion, as you eventually find out, is “cherry-picking.” Cherry-picking data as an accusation assumes the culprit has been fastidious in sorting through the bushel basket of red round things to find only those that truly are edible stone fruit rather than a rock, tuber, or other unidentifiable lump. Cherry-picking, despite sounding like a good thing, is considered flawed when it comes to argumentation, even though it appears to be so similar as to be indistinguishable from what we’re taught to do.
When we seek and find evidence in support of the things we believe, this is criticized as cherry-picking. We use data that supports our opinions selectively, which is a method of confirming our biases. A bias is a prejudice for or against something, and the laziest thing anyone can do is to confirm his or her own prejudices by seeking support for them. Nevertheless, we are taught and trained to confirm our biases by cherry picking data as we learn to write essays arguing for things because we need the college credit.
Evidence abounds that this is a very strange place we inhabit.
Good morning all!
So much to think about, to reply (ok, debate) so little time to articulate clearly and concisely, fingers so fat that it multiplies that time by a lot.
Particularly afyer reading this:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds
Much to, ahem, inquire about!
Off to church.
This may come as a shock, but I beg to differ. I was taught otherwise. If I truly want to engage in debate and try to convince you I am right, I should spend time researching your position and how you are likely to support it. By doing so, and by willing to discuss that, too, I am more likely to find ways to support my position as well as get to the heart of whatever weakness I see in yours, rather than just be a counter-puncher. If we each cherry pick our supporting facts and then just counter punch, neither of will learn anything and neither is likely to hear the other and be convinced. In other words, it will be a performance. Now, if we both just want to perform and ask the audience to choose the better performer, we can so engage. It will not, however, truly serve anyone if what we seek is understanding and to jointly find the best path forward.
Whether I am in search of just a debate victory, scoring points with the audience or trying to honestly engage in discussion, I am best served if I spend some time studying your position and supporting arguments before we engage.
To be clear, I do like cherries.