the point of argument

[davewitley]

Amy Z wrote:

> Um, where was I?  Oh yeah.  I guess I have a lot of faith in 
> people's ability to change their minds; I frequently change my 
mind 
> as a result of other people's explanations of their stances 

Like Amy I didn't have time to participate first time round.

The thing that puzzed me (and frequently does in arguments of this 
type) is that many of the subjects that seem to generate the most 
heat seem seem to  be empirical matters that could be settled with 
recourse to official statistics and the like.  Don't the relevant 
authorities *publish* statistics on the incidence of people being 
arrested for child abuse, the proportion of succesful convictions, 
the regional variations in such data, and so on?  Such statistics 
don't necessarily resolve the issues (is an increase due to crimes 
formerly missed now being cleared up or is it over-zealous 
officialdom?) but they do help to define more clearly where the 
argument, if any, really is.

IMO, properly marshalled information trumps any amount of my-friend-
was-in-a-mall-and-saw-the-police-stand-by-and-hold-the-coats-of-a-
gang-of-youths-while-they-beat-up-an-old-man anecdotes.

In the same way, I don't think it's beyond the wit of most HPFGU 
members to set out in a dispassionate way the issues that bear on a 
political decision such as that to invade a foreign country, 
delineate the areas of uncertainty that would need resolving (and in 
practice might require the resources of government to resolve), and 
then assess whether in fact the public decision-making process did 
address the relevant issues and uncertainties.  It's not rocket 
science (unless the decision is whether to send a mission to Mars), 
though it perhaps does take more time than most of us would really 
like to spend.

To me, it's Hermione and Lavender's rabbit all over again.

David