opinions-essays-onRationalDiscussion

(as with almost everything on this site, in progress)

(without asserting that he agrees with or supports anything i say here, some of this was inspired by ruadhan o'flanagan)

I think it would be useful to have codifications of what people believe to be the rules of rational discussion.

Here's some tenative notes/axiom proposals towards this goal:

Definitions:

Axioms:

Etiquette of rational discussion

Optionally, layered on top of the rules of rational discussion may also be the rules of rational etiquette. By "layered on top", I mean it is possible for a rational discussion to be conducted without following the rules of rational etiquette -- for instance, it may be "permissible but offense" to say certain things.

These constrain the interpretation of concepts such as offense, apology, and merit.

Some definitions and axioms about discussions in general

(definition of irrational) Rules which constrain what participants may say beyond those given here, either by narrowing the scope of permissibility of broadening the scope of offense, are "irrational".

A discussion involves a discrete number of discussion "participants", which are entities.

The types of actions that are involved in discussions are only speech actions; however, the content of discussions may refer to other types of actions.

Every time an entity has a choice, out of the choices it is faced with, those which are valid under the governing rules are called opportunities.

If something is permissible, then the rules do not penalize it. No opportunities are lost by taking a permissible action (including, of course, future opportunities).

A "factual proposition" is a proposition which has a definite truth value.

Propositions which involve deontological modals are never factual propositions, unless their scope is confined to a cited deontological authority (if you do not like this, then please replace all references to "factual propositions" in the rules with "factual propositions except ones with free deontological modals").

Predictions can be factual propositions (if you do not like this, then please replace all references to "factual propositions" in the rules with "factual propositions or predictions").

An "accepted fact" is a factual proposition accepted by all participants.

The rules of rationality/rational etiquette consist of all those constraints implied by the axioms of rationality/rational etiquette.

Note that the rules of rationality refer to "the rules governing the discussion". These may include other rules beyond the rules of rationality themselves.

An "irrational rule" is one which constrains what participants say beyond the constraints of permissibility given by the rules of rationality, or one which permits participants to say something forbidden by the rules of rationality.

A "symmetric" rule or set of rules is one which treats all participants the same.

A loss of merit in the eyes of others is not considered a penalty in the sense of (right to leave) because it does not affect the opportunities during discussion. Therefore, if you offend people, this may affect how they treat you outside of the discussion.

Some observations/theorems

The rules of rational discussion do not make reference to the internal states of mind of the participants. However, the rules of rational etiquette do.

None of the rules of rational etiquette are irrational. (pf idea: every axiom of rre is consistent with rrd)

It may be considered offensive to advocate a proposal. (pf idea: every axiom is consistent with this)

(noninterference of rationality with etiquette) The concepts of offense and apology are not within the scope of the rules of rationality. (pf: they are not mentioned in the axioms)

(noninterference of etiquette with rationality) Something which the rules of rationality say is permissible is still permissible whether or not one gives offense; i.e. such a thing cannot be forbidden as punishment for giving offense. (pf: the rules of rationality constrain the definition of what is permissible without regard to what gives offense)

(ejection of participant) The (right to leave) effectively allows the group to eject a participant by the unanimous consent of everyone else, for any reason, even if they are "punishing" the target participant for an action which is permitted under the rules, because by (right to leave) everyone else can choose to leave the discussion without penalty, and then they could choose to begin a new discussion with rules that specify that the new discussion picks up where the previous one left off, but without the ejected participant. In fact, any subset of the group can always "eject" the rest of the group by withdrawing and then starting their own continuation of the discussion. This may or may not serve their goals.

Some useful conventions

Examples of the application of the rules

Controversial examples:

If you find that these examples violate your norms of what makes a good discussion, then before rejecting these rules as useless, please consider the possibility that rationality may not always be what you want. For example, in one of the examples below, it is asserted that it would be irrational for a schoolteacher to take away speaking time from a student for making racist and insulting remarks if there were not an explicit rule against such remarks. I do not think not preventing the student from speaking further is a good idea, but rather than reject (clarity of rules regarding content) as a rule of rationality, I would say that grade school discussions have a goal of educating the students to be "nice", even if this means that the discussions are not always rational.

todo

(???: how to reconcile with offensive opinions) (judgement) A proposition which is not a fact is a matter of opinion. To hold an opinion is called "judgement". Judgement is never offensive

???: * (symmetry with respect to content) The rules of the discussion are as symmetric as possible with respect to the content of the discussion. ???: * Billy makes racist and insulting remarks. In a rational discussion, Billy cannot have his remaining speaking time taken away, because this would violate (symmetry with respect to content). Even though he has given offense, by theorem (noninterference of etiquette with rationality), this does not allow the violation of (symmetry with respect to content).