This post is about the role of argument in scientific research, both ideal and practical. The topic, of course, is a big one, and here I will just present some brief thoughts based on my limited experience.
The ideal case
Ideally, argument has a seminal role to play in scientific research. For example:
i) In principle, since all knowledge is provisional, it should always be open to argument.
ii) Free and fair argument is one of the pillars of progress in scientific research. One cannot suppress argument by putting on the guise of being an unchallengeable authority.
iii) One of the outstanding pleasures of performing scientific research is 'finding a good argument', which is often the crucial prelude to performing a calculation or experiment that fleshes out the argument quantitatively.
The practical case
i) Intelligent people typically do not argue too much. They get what you are saying very quickly, and they are very good at conveying what they are trying to say to you. Also, they are very good at deciding to stop the argument at a point where it is clear that not enough is known about the topic to make further discussion meaningful.
ii) Since resources like time, money, intelligence and patience are always limited, in practice argument can be supported only to a finite extent. For example, it is not possible to sustain someone who questions everything.
(I once had a freshman in my office, not yet mentally out of early teenage, who replied to each of my explanations with a "But why?". But such an attitude is not limited to the scientifically immature. I have seen colleagues in the field who love having meaningless arguments, where you oppose your conversational partner(s) on principle, an exercise that I could never derive any benefits from; it also stops being amusing rather quickly).
iii) The choice of having an argument is often abused for blowing off steam, for convincing oneself that one is being heard (i.e. respected), for talking past the person being argued with. None of these actions are productive, and are in fact often counter productive.
iv) Argumentation can be a devastatingly effective research tool in the hands of those who are able to combine it with a lack of ego and an ability to follow up each of their criticisms with a constructive suggestion.
Typically an argument with such a person is extremely productive and creative, yielding unexpected insights, fresh perspectives, and new routes to knowledge. With such a person, one can start from a vague hunch, and rather quickly end up with a paper.
The psychologists call this working off the 'top' of one's intelligence: you take the best of what your opponent has offered you and build something on it (instead of just being purely critical or faultfinding). This is a type of constructive interference. This is the kind of argumentation I like to preach and practice.
Some further thoughts
I have always been curious about the evolutionary aspects of argumentation. Generally, the phenomenon of argumentation can be thought of as Darwinian, a mechanism evolved for the purpose of 'arguing' our survival. Perhaps I can clarify this using some mundane examples:
When we know something well, we usually don't raise our voice while discussing it. There is no need to argue. For example: everyone is convinced of the existence of the sun. The statement is at the level of a fact. No one requires an extensive proof of it, or a vigorous argument about it. [Seems like a relevant example, considering the upcoming eclipse on April 8 -:)].
However, when we do not know something well enough to prove it, we compensate by raising our voice automatically. For example: take your favorite political philosophy. In this light, the vociferousness of an argument may be taken to be indicative of the level of ignorance of the parties involved (Ambrose Bierce says something like 'To be sure is to be mistaken at the top of your voice'.)
I suspect this is an evolutionary mechanism. Nature enables us to compensate for our ignorance by giving us more amplitude in our voice boxes. The evolutionary benefit of this is that confidence usually wins (even when based on ignorance). (There is some research that shows confidence helps us optimize behavior such as resource allocation).
Comments