[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: the point of argument

[Laura Ingalls Huntley]

Like Silverthorne, I eventually just lost interest in the Manners 
Debate the first time around -- I got about halfway through a response 
to the last post on the topic, realized I was just repeating myself 
again, and decided to let it go in favor of finishing my Linear Algebra 
homework (which was a first, lemme tell you).

However, I'm glad to see this new thread rise from the decaying remains 
of that discussion.  Debating the nature of Debating is one of my 
favorite things (for all that I'm a complete amateur at it). ^_^

David Witley:
> 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.

Oh, dear.  I can see why one might think this, but the truth is that 
so-called "empirical" statistics are dirty rotten liars.  After doing a 
few term papers on well-studied issues like abortion and the death 
penalty, I've come to realize the horrible truth: people can make 
statistics "say" just about any darn thing they'd like (even in cases 
where they're honestly *trying* to be impartial).

Even a body of hard, replicable data from controlled *scientific* 
experiments isn't really trustworthy -- as human beings we are 
incredibly subjective, and that colors everything we touch, no matter 
how hard we try for objectivity.

You are right that statistical evidence is in some respects superior to 
anecdotal evidence (and certainly more trusted by our society), 
*provided* that everyone involved realizes its limitations and biases.  
Personally, however, I'm very cynical towards statistics in general -- 
esp. any I might have found online -- and therefore didn't bother to 
get any.

When I'm not just arguing for the sake of arguing (it's a bad habit, 
sorry), my preferred type of evidence is the Expert Opinion of someone 
I have a reason to trust, although the problem with this is that other 
people may not have any reason to also trust the people that I cite.  
For instance, I know quite a few adults that work in psychology, 
therapy, and/or child services, plus several that are foster parents.  
These people all tell me that it is nearly impossible to convict (or 
even bring to trial) an adult on charges of child abuse and that 
children in foster homes are often sent back to mothers addicted to 
drugs and abusive boyfriends.  This information is enough to satisfy 
*me* that I'm right, however I can see why others might dismiss it 
entirely -- technically, I could be *gasp*  making it all up.

However, an impartial Expert Opinion (that everyone will accept or even 
*should* accept) is nearly impossible to find on the public internet, 
and I was not about to do any *real*, heavy-duty research to prove my 
point to some guy on OTC.

> 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?

Who are the relevant authorities, though?  I haven't studied this 
particular topic, but in the case of the death penalty, I know both 
pro- and anti- sites use the same *government* statistics to prove 
whether or not the death penalty has a deterrent effect (and, 
obviously, they get different answers).

And it's pretty useless to try to interpret raw government statistics 
(which have inherent biases anyway) on your own, unless you're an 
actual expert on the subject.

> 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.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "where the argument is", exactly.  
Could you clarify that?  Also, you really can't dismiss the issue you 
mentioned parenthetically, or the fact that certain laws and guidelines 
for removing children/pressing charges have changed between time 
periods, or that our society's definition of humane treatment of other 
human beings has also changed . . . I could list these problems 
forever, believe me.

The fact is that there are too many things that factor into a statistic 
like how many people are charged with child abuse per year, and these 
factors range from everything from economical issues to sociological 
ones. Trying to compare such a statistic from the 90's to one in, say, 
the 50's is very complicated at best and completely useless at worst.  
IMO, it would be as informative as comparing apples and oranges and 
trying to prove, empirically, that one tastes better than the other.

> 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.

Well, yes -- but "properly marshaled information" is hard to come by 
and doesn't always mean the same thing to everyone who looks at it.

> 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.

Amen to that last bit, although I would argue that all the information 
needed to make a decision like invading another country is not (and 
will likely never be) available to the public -- and even if it were, 
such a decision is ultimately a judgment call, complete with moral 
issues and trade-offs.  Personally, I know hardly anything about the 
Iraq situation (although, in general, I am against war) and am always 
amazed at the number of people who will cheerfully make very strong 
opinions about the matter based on even less knowledge than *I* have.  
I suppose this is inevitable, really, and I certainly can't say that 
I've never formed an ill-informed opinion before, but . . . surely, 
people realize that the decision to attack another country is a far 
more complicated matter than "War is wrong!" or "Death to Saddam!" ?

Laura (who apologizes if this post is difficult to read -- there are 
bound to be mistakes in wording, as there wasn't enough time to proof 
it properly.)