STRUCTURING THE DISCUSSION: Ben Bateman replies to Gabriel Rosenberg

Mr. Rosenberg asks several interesting questions in responding to me and points out several important areas I did not discuss. In this post I'd like to address a more important topic: the structure of the SSM discussion itself.

In discussing SSM here and elsewhere, I've been amazed at how far apart the two sides are. A hypothetical contributor (let's call him Ted) might say "X and Y, therefore SSM." (Or not-SSM. It doesn't matter for this discussion.) Ted thinks about X and Y quite a lot, and he is thoroughly convinced of their truth. In fact, he doesn't see how any reasonable person could dispute the truth of X and Y. So he assumes X and Y in his post, and then explains why they combine to support his view on SSM.

What Ted doesn't expect is that those on the other side don't agree with X or Y as premises, and certain aren't interested in whether they combine to form some SSM conclusion. The other side may not even understand what Ted means by X and Y, because he didn't take the time to explain them, or didn't have room to do so. Or the other side may interpret X and Y to mean something completely different from what Ted intended. In any case, confusion results. After Ted's post has been read and responded to, the two sides are just as far apart as before--perhaps even farther.

Ted's mistake is in trying to end each argument with a direct conclusion about SSM. The sides are too far apart for that. They don't share enough premises. Instead of trying to convince the other side on SSM generally, Ted's time would be better spent trying to convince the other side of the premises X and Y, or even discussing the vocabulary and sub-premises that go into demonstrating the truth of X and Y. He should move backwards this way to smaller premises and more basic definitions until he finds common ground with the other side, and then build up from there. He should focus on small areas of agreement, rather than large areas of disagreement.

So I suggest that we put the big SSM issue to one side for now. We know we disagree on that. Let's look at smaller related questions on which we might agree, or at least understand each other.

In the current conversation, I think we've agreed that the word "parents" has two possible meanings: genetic parents and upbringing parents. I've also proposed a distinction between the single-mother Fantine situation and the egg or sperm donor situation. In both cases, Mr. Rosenberg isn't sure what the purpose of such a distinction is, but perhaps we've agreed that one could draw such a distinction, and he is aware now that I consider it important.

We may also agree that in general genetic parents should marry before they produce children, though that may require further discussion in egg/sperm donor situations.

If we keep building sub-premises and clarifying definitions like this, if we strive for small agreements rather than repeating large disagreements, then we may actually accomplish something in the SSM debate.
posted by Eve at 11:00 AM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home