notes for Nov. 25 2002
Aidan Keuter
The question is posed: How can we be more rational?
By exercising epistemic humility
this essentially means to hold all of ones beliefs as tentative
in principle this enables an individual to revise all or one of their beliefs.
Prof. Borrowdale gave this example:
If he came across new information about the mid-east crisis he might change his stance. He probably wouldn't but he is still open to the possibility.

Does debate lead to dogmatism and which is better debate or dialogue?
Dialogue is defined as sharing views without criticism
Debate is defined as adversarial argumentation where each party attempts to persuade the other of his/her position

criticism of dialogue -
fosters an attitude of rationalism or subjectivism
might validate someone's views instead of persuading them of something different

criticism of debate -
becomes about winning instead of about who is right
"ego conflict"
some people take an extreme stance because they think giving an inch will lead to an eventual loss
example: abortion rights issue
more fiercely entrench false beliefs through fostering defensiveness
fosters hostility

the point was made that being at the losing end of a debate, more than at the losing end of a dialogue, may cause people to reconsider their views.
BUT it is hard to lose a debate about many issues
example: really losing a debate on Israel and Palestine is virtually impossible because so much information exsists for and against both sides
compared to convincing someone they should start eating vegetarian