Public Reasoning

The most recent (recycled) posting at AskPhilosophers is a variation on the classic question all philosophers get regarding the practical utility of philosophy. (And this is a constant since the ancient Greeks - you'd think we might have better responses by now). In this particular case, it's about logic. And, as usual, the philosopher's answer is rather inadequate. That's the problem philosophers face - you have to have spent some serious time with philosophy in order to understand its importance. And we ought to do that. But even then you still might not get it nor be able to use much of it at all.

Q: ...No political columnist ever cites logical validity or fallacies to support their view or dismiss the views of others - it is all opinion and anecdote (even if they did, few would get their point) - so how does logic work outside of the rarefied realm of philosophy?

A: Well, I happen to think that it would be better if political columnists DID point out logical mistakes in the arguments made by public officials. There is no shortage of mistakes to point out. Of course, to point out mistakes in the arguments made by politicians, there would have to be arguments to begin with, and they too are in perilously short supply. Perhaps more attention to logic would encourage participants in public debates to offer arguments instead of appeals to emotion, innuendo, name-calling, and sanctimonious prattle....

Sure. It is not the case that this is the case, but it ought to be the case that this is the case. But for this kind of response - a standard one among philosophers - to be compelling, it has to at least add some element of self interest for the interlocutor. It's silly to demand that public officials ought to be honest all the time and be rigorously held to a standard of reasoned argumentation in public discourse - that is, silly if the expectation is that this will become reality. And it's silly to respond simply that we ought to hold public officials accountable - that is, for the sake of accountability.

Why not simply respond to the questioner that he/she, or any other citizen, is a fool if he/she does not study and demand reasoned arguments, transparency, accountability, and honesty in both public officials and those who help develop and relay their messages? After all, many decisions (or ongoing decision-making) by public officials shape the lives of citizens in both the minute details and in the bigger picture of life aspirations. And one would hope to have some control over the shape of one's life, right? And then you could add that public officials often have a real leg up on you because some know how to manipulate logic and rhetoric for their own ends. Precisely because they are public officials, they thus have the ability to shape your world according to their understanding of it. Jonathan Schwarz directs us to this recent exchange:

What should one do in public debate when confronted with an ad hominem attack? Martin Indyk, US ambassador to Israel during the Clinton administration, conducted a master class on this subject on yesterday's Democracy Now!

The disgusting smears began with Norman Finkelstein's endless litany of personal insults toward Indyk:

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I think we should talk about [Indyk's] book. In fact, I stayed up ’til 1:30 a.m. to complete the book, made sure I read up to page 415, read every word of the book...

According to Mr. Indyk’s account of the negotiations that culminated in the Camp David and Taba meetings, he says it was the Palestinians that were blocking a settlement. What does the record show? The record shows that in every crucial issue raised at Camp David, then under the Clinton parameters, and then in Taba, at every single point, all the concessions came from the Palestinians. Israel didn’t make any concessions...

The law is very clear. July 2004, the highest judicial body in the world, the International Court of Justice, ruled Israel has no title to any of the West Bank and any of Gaza...

Now, the important point is, on all those questions, the Palestinians were willing to make concessions. They were willing to allow Israel to keep 60 percent of the settlements, 80 percent of the settlers. They were willing to compromise on Jerusalem. They were willing to give up basically on the right of return. They made all the concessions. Israel didn’t make any concessions...

To his credit, Mr. Indyk kept his cool in the face of this onslaught. At the same time, he insisted on naming Finkelstein's appalling tactics for what they were:

MARTIN INDYK: I told you, Amy, I’m not here to debate Norman Finkelstein...I’m not going to respond to his ad hominem attacks.

Even more impressive, Mr. Indyk then showed the ability to rise above his opponent's ugly behavior, and demonstrate by example what reasoned political discussion should look like:

MARTIN INDYK: Well, why don’t we focus on some other issues, like the American role in this or something that can get us out of this ridiculous debate, in which he’s just a propaganda spokesman for Hamas, you know.