Intelligent Discussion

To the Editor:
As I read the letters to the Herald most weeks, it strikes me that certain basic rules of intelligent, rational discussion are not being observed, and we are not well served by ignoring them. So, let me suggest a few that are easily followed. They aren’t my rules. They are just the rules of intelligent discourse.
1. Stop using quotes to justify a position unless those quotes reflect the thoughts of the majority of scholars/experts/researchers on a subject. Anyone who has taught or taken freshman logic should know that most quotes are used as arguments from authority and, as such, are rarely valid. If for no other reason, there are always quotes from people on the other side of a position, so the quote proves nothing. Quoting Theodore Roosevelt or Ike or Edmund Burke or John Adams demonstrates absolutely nothing more than indicating that the writer has a weak argument that needs support. A solid argument stands without the support of quotes from “authorities.”
2. Stop pretending to be constitutional experts. To make claims about knowing the meaning of the constitution means that we know more than members of the Supreme Court, scholars, jurists and legal experts who continually debate such things. It is the utmost arrogance to suggest that we of virtually no learning or legal background know more than they.
3. Stop pretending to understand history. History is really complicated stuff. Except for the obvious things (like the fact that there was slavery in the south), any statement beyond that is almost always a narrow slice (like slave families were routinely broken up), which is often misleading at best.
4. Especially, stop all talk about the intentions of our “founding fathers.” There were lots of them and they had a wide disparity of opinions on a wide variety of subjects. Ditto with the “framers of the constitution.” As an aside, it doesn’t matter what the ‘framers” thought or intended. What matters is what the ratifiers thought they meant or intended. So unless you have studied the writings both personal and public of all 1,100 of the members of the various state ratifying conventions meant, it would be wise to avoid talking about what the “founding fathers“ intended.
5. Stop all smears and innuendos about the motivations of various leaders, political figures, etc. We don’t know what Obama intends and still don’t know what Bush intended. Motivations are almost always complex and it doesn’t help to pretend otherwise. Sometimes we know them. Most of the time we don’t.
6. Stop pretending to know the future. We don’t. No one knows what the impact of raising the minimum wage will be. The best we can do is try to make predictions using the most reliable studies and not ignoring the ones which dispute them. We don’t know if sexual liberation or female liberation is causing the breakdown of the family in America. In fact we don’t know if families have broken, except in some narrow senses. So if we want to make claims, let’s do it with modesty, using the time tested (but often ignored) “I think” or “it seems to me” qualifiers. A bit of humility never hurts.
Can we agree on that? I realize that might take the fun out of blaming, and ranting and posturing and pontificating and pretending to be knowledgeable, but it might do wonders to give rise to honest discussion and clarifying thoughts. Heck, it might even lead a way forward in our thinking.