On the Culture of Discussion

In ancient India, there were many different schools of philosophy and religion that were highly developed. Unfortunately, most of us know virtually nothing about them, because in our education system’s understanding, the roots of philosophy lie solely in Greece. However, the more I become acquainted with Indian traditions, the more I see how beneficial it would be if we adopted some things from them.

One of the methods through which philosophy developed was public debate. These took place according to established rules. I believe two of them would be worth adopting by our academic circles and internet commentators alike.

1. The loser’s stakes — the side that lost the debate was obligated to become a student of the winner. Considering that debates, for example at the royal court, were attended by top-level specialists — heads of their schools, leading researchers, and so on — one can understand that this stakes principle raised the quality of debates very high. Even more so — if the head of a school lost the debate, he lost his school and, together with all his followers, went to study under the winner.

2. The “Vada” principle — when a debate took place between two opponents, the opponent’s task, before beginning their rebuttal, was to repeat the first speaker’s position with such quality that it would earn the first speaker’s confirmation — “yes, that is what I said, that is my position, stated correctly.” And only then could the opponent begin to refute what they had just repeated. (There were also specific rules for how to do this.) It is precisely this principle — repeating your opponent’s position so that the opponent agrees with the repetition — that we are catastrophically lacking. Instead, the most commonly used principle is the “straw man” — attributing words to the opponent that they never said, and then demolishing those to shreds — and considering it a victory.

An addition — after this article was already published, I found a few discussion principles in older notes. Their author is philosopher Daniel Dennett, who described these four principles in his book “Intuition Pumps And Other Tools for Thinking.” These principles are based on the work of game theory researcher Anatol Rapoport:

1. Attempt to express your opponent’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your opponent would say “Thank you, I wish I had thought to put it that way.”
2. List all points of agreement — especially those that are not obvious truths or part of a larger consensus.
3. Mention everything you have learned from your opponent.
4. Only then are you permitted to offer your rebuttal or criticism.

Dennett does note that not all opponents deserve such respectful treatment, but when they do, this approach pays off manifold. “It is worth reminding yourself that a genuinely heroic attempt to find a defensible interpretation of your opponent’s words, if it fails, is far more devastating than an angry attack with an axe. I recommend it.”

Here I recall that it was, I believe, Thomas Kuhn who, responding to criticism he received for his work “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” said that it appeared the opponents had not even read his work. If opponents were obligated to first accurately reflect Kuhn’s claims and only then proceed to refutation, such a thing could not have happened. And everyone would have benefited.