For the sake of public discourse in our public institutions,
reasoned argument needs to be based on experience. This is opposed to argument based in whole or
in part on inspiration. Religious
argument can be based on inspiration, but in a public setting, religious
argument does not suffice. By public, I
mean those settings sanctioned or sponsored by the state, such as our public
schools. It also cannot be based solely on
emotions. One cannot reasonably just
say, “Well, I simply feel that way.”
Conclusions have to be based on the experiences one has had or on those
experiences others report. Both
inspirations and emotions can inform one as to his/her position on some
question, but then that person, in order to be reasonable, must cite experiences.
I mention this because I am presently reviewing a set of
disciplines, ala Philip Selznick,[1] that a
person needs to adhere to in order to argue reasonably. To date, I have listed the disciplines of order
and principle. This posting – a short
one – addresses experience. I am
reviewing these disciplines because I believe that civics educators, in
particular, and educators in general should have students engage in
argument. In the case of civics, the
question before students is: what is
appropriate public policy either in the case of formulating new policy or
reviewing already implemented policy?
People do not agree on these types of questions because people have
varied interests and public problems and issues can be quite complex. And unlike the physical world, mistakes do
not become so readily knowable or apparent.
It is amazing how often certain social conditions need to be experienced
and certain reactive policies tried before we humans can detect the errors of
past policy attempts. For example, in
the case of economic downturns, should the government engage in austere
policies or promote, through public spending and borrowing, stimulus policies? Even though we continuously seem to go
through economic cycles with serious downturns, we still have strenuous debate
as to what the appropriate public policy should be.
So with that, I am arguing that good argument should adhere
to certain disciplines. In this posting,
the focus is on the discipline of experience.
Experience can be managed in several ways. Science provides us a way that is much
disciplined. When engaging in science,
there are accepted and unaccepted ways of handling and recording
experience. While the actual practice of
science need not follow such a rigid protocol, reporting and analyzing the
results of those activities does demand a high degree of order and strict
implementation of logic. But there are
other forms of experiences that are also valid and often more efficient. Take the person who has worked at a job or
career for a long period of time, say years.
He or she develops a sense of what the job is about and, in the process
and almost at a subconscious level, forms intuitive insights. That person can tell you something is right
or wrong about something related without being able to articulate why it is
right or wrong. Such insights usually
prove to be spot on. Related to such
abilities are examples of heuristic thinking.
These are “rules of thumb” one develops from not so formal processes,
but purely from unreflective observations.
I wrote about these mental processes in the posting entitled, Framework. They usually prove to be correct. But no matter how formal one is, arguments
based on experiences have the advantage over inspiration or emotions in that
they can be tested. One can replicate
experiences or, better still, pre-replicate and experiment as the character in
the movie, Castaway, does.
We will see in later postings that when formulating an
argument, one specific skill will be to cite factual information. This will be basically the reporting of
experiences – they are the “wherefores” before the “therefores.”
[1]
Selznick, P.
(1992). The moral commonwealth: Social
theory and the promise of community.
Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
