3.1 Cooperation
Reasoning is a cooperative enterprise; even when people disagree, the aim of disagreement is weighing the reasons on each side, to determine what is true. Disagreement can be a positive and constructive thing when both sides listen and try to understand what the other is really saying.
Reasoning cooperatively means interpreting others charitably and listening with an open mind. Someone who intentionally distorts what someone else says in order to make them seem wrong, or who simply dismisses anyone who doesn’t already agree with them, is more interested in feeling like they are right rather than in actually being right.
Table of Contents
- 3.1 Cooperation
3.1.1 The Cooperative Principle
Make your conversational contribution such as is required by the purpose of the exchange.
“Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.”
H. P. Grice (1975)
The Cooperative Principle
Grice’s principle above is known as the “Cooperative Principle”, which is a principle of pragmatics, or the practical use of language. The cooperative principle is presupposed in our ordinary communication with one another: we assume by default, when we are having a conversation with someone else, that they are contributing towards the accepted purpose or direction of the conversation. Our assuming that the other person is following the cooperative principle is what explains why we assume that what someone else asserts is relevant to the conversation, not intentionally misleading, and something they sincerely and rationally believe to be true.
Language can be playful, and sometimes we intentionally flout or play with the cooperative principle, such as when we speak sarcastically or use hyperbole (intentional exaggerations, like “I’m so hungry I could eat a horse”), or when we implicate something by saying something else. For example, in response to the question “are you okay?” a person who is upset might say, “I’m fine”, but not actually intend the other person to believe that they are fine, but in fact that they are too angry and hurt to say anything more. This way of pretending not to cooperate while still cooperating is sometimes known as indirect speech or implicature. In our logic class we will try to be explicit in what we are saying, and avoid indirect speech and implicature, while understanding that it is a useful part of everyday conversation.
Violating the cooperative principle, on the other hand, is engaging in a conversation with ulterior motives, other than the accepted purpose of the conversation. Someone may try to use the pretense of a conversation to try to persuade bystanders who are listening to the conversation, or to publicly discredit the person they are talking to, or to win a power struggle, with no interest in arriving at a mutual understanding of the other person’s reasons. This is a misunderstanding of the purpose of disagreement or debate.
Disagreement is Cooperation
Why do people get into disagreements with each other? After all, two people who simply have different opinions don’t have to talk to one another about their differing opinions. They could keep the disagreement to themselves, and keep the peace. Nonetheless, people vigorously try to persuade each other that they are right.
The cooperative principle tells us that behind every impassioned debate, there is a common, rational goal. Both sides want to be right, in the sense that we both want to believe the truth. The fact that the other side does not share my belief might give me a reason to doubt the truth of that belief. So the accepted purpose of disagreement is to sort out whether the reasons on the other side really should lead me to doubt my belief, or whether my reasons give a good reply to their reasons. Even if neither side changes its mind after a dispute, the dispute can be successful if both sides end with a better understanding of the reasoning on the other side and of their own reasoning.
When writing an argument, then, assume that the “audience” you are arguing to is your opponent, someone who already thinks that you are wrong. If you write an argument assuming that the other person is already on your side, you’ll be tempted to give weak reasons that only sound persuasive to people who already agree with you. If you write an argument assuming that the other person is undecided, you’ll be focused more on making them change their mind than on finding the best reasons. But if you write an argument assuming the other person already disagrees with you, you’ll tend to give stronger reasons and to think ahead about how you might respond to objections and counter arguments against your views.
3.1.2 Interpreting Others Charitably
John Argyropoulos’s Latin Translation of Aristotle’s “On Interpretation”. 15th Century.
“We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement.”
– Donald Davidson (Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, 1984)
The Principle of Charitable Interpretation
We often aren’t explicit about every aspect of our reasoning when we try to explain our views to others, and this leaves our words open to interpretation. Other people could, if they wanted, misconstrue our words or attribute to us meanings or intentions that we did not mean or intend. Donald Davidson’s “principle of charity”, quoted above, is a principle for how to interpret what other people say, even when we disagree with them. It says that we should try our best to make people make sense, even when they don’t seem at first to us to make much sense.
For instance, suppose you strongly disagree with a proposal to eliminate bike paths in the city. The people behind the proposal just repeat empty slogans, like “Turnpikes, not bikes!” and “Run ‘em down!”. When you try to argue for keeping bike paths, you would need to interpret your opponents’ reasoning charitably or rationally as possible, by thinking of the most sensible arguments your opponent might give. For instance, your opponent might think that bicycles slow down traffic, and that so few people ride bicycles compared to people who drive cars that cars should have priority.
There is a fine line between interpreting someone charitably and putting words in their mouth. A “charitable” or well-intentioned misrepresentation of someone’s views is still a misrepresentation, and speaking up for someone is a poor substitute for giving them a voice of their own or asking them to clarify what they think. Still, charitable interpretations are better than the alternative.
The Straw Man Fallacy
The fallacy of uncharitable interpretation, often called the “Straw Man” fallacy, happens when someone presents an opponent’s position or an opponent’s argument as being silly, crazy, evil or unreasonable, and then concludes that the opponent must be wrong.
Someone might attribute poor reasoning to their opponent:
- Xavier wants to eliminate bike lanes because he thinks that, if we eliminate bike lanes, then we will eliminate biker gangs.
- It is false that if we eliminate bike lanes, then we will eliminate biker gangs.
C. We should not eliminate bike lanes.
Someone might also attribute an unreasonable position to their opponent:
- Xavier wants to eliminate bike lanes.
- If Xavier wants to eliminate bike lanes, then Xavier wants to kill bicyclists.
- No one should want to kill bicyclists.
C. Xavier should not want to eliminate bike lanes.
Another kind of uncharitable interpretation involves attributing ulterior motives to one’s opponent:
- Xavier only thinks that we should eliminate bike lanes because his ex-girlfriend rides a bicycle.
- We should not eliminate bike lanes just because Xavier’s ex-girlfriend rides a bicycle.
C. We should not eliminate bike lanes.
Another kind of uncharitable interpretation involves defining words or terms in a way that makes an opponent seem like they are irrational:
- Xavier thinks that we should eliminate bike lanes.
- If we eliminate bike lanes, then legally bikes can travel down any lane in the direction of traffic.
- If bikes can travel down any lane in the direction of travel, every lane on the road is a bike lane.
- Xavier thinks that we should eliminate every lane on the road.
- If we eliminate every lane on the road, then we have to eliminate roads.
C. Xavier thinks that we should eliminate roads.
While this tactic might be funny or clever, it doesn’t actually engage with the opponent’s reasoning.
Lastly, one form of uncharitable interpretation which students who study logic are often tempted to engage in is the “Fallacy Fallacy”, or the fallacy of concluding that other people are wrong because they can be interpreted as making fallacies or unreasonable inferences. For instance:
- Xavier says that people who support bike lanes only do so because they hate people who drive cars.
- Xavier is wrong about people who support bike lanes, because he is committing the fallacy of uncharitable interpretation.
C. Xavier is wrong about bike lanes.
3.1.3 Listening with an Open Mind
Listening to the views of others doesn’t require giving up your own views.
Disagreement between Equals
Some disagreements are between people who do not have equal evidence, background knowledge, or intellectual ability. In these cases, the person who has more evidence, or more knowledge, or more intellectual ability can respect the person who disagrees with them, but does not need to take their disagreement as a reason to doubt their own beliefs. For instance, if a Nobel-prize winning physicist receives an email from a child in elementary school criticizing their theory, and the e-mail shows the child does not understand basic physics, then the child’s criticism does not give the a physicist reason to doubt the theory.
Many of our disagreements, however, are with people who seem to have comparable knowledge, ability, and evidence to us. In this case, the fact that someone else has come to a different conclusion naturally leads us to doubt a little bit whether we’ve made a mistake in reasoning, or whether they have some knowledge or evidence we don’t have.
How much doubt should this cause us? There seem to be two extremes we would want to avoid: extreme open-mindedness and extreme steadfastness. Instead, we should find the middle ground between them.
Open-mindedness and Steadfastness
Extreme open-mindedness is when someone lacks any steadfastness, and abandons their own views in the face of any opposition or disagreement. The mere fact that someone else disagrees with them leads them to change their mind. Someone at this extreme will find themselves constantly changing their own minds, making claims that are always extremely half-hearted and hedged, and in general not showing respect for their own equal reasoning ability. They will tend to adopt whatever perspective they encountered in the last thing they read or the last video they watched. When someone who has a very dominant and self-confident personality encounters a group of people who are quick to drop their own views, the person with the confident personality will tend to persuade people simply by being the most confident person in the room.
Extreme Steadfastness is the opposite: when someone is not at all open-minded, and the fact that someone else disagrees with them, or might have better evidence than them, doesn’t cause them to question or reconsider for even a moment the justification for their own view. They dismiss arguments not because they have thought through how they might challenge the premises, but because they don’t already agree with the conclusion. Someone at this extreme may have the benefit of stable and predictable beliefs, but will miss out on the opportunity to learn, grow, and change. A person who never listens to disagreement will tend to fall prey to the fallacies of circular reasoning or question-begging arguments which we discussed earlier.
The balance between open-mindedness and steadfastness is learning to listen without agreeing. Giving someone else a hearing is not the same as affirming that they are right. Without abandoning one’s own reasons, someone can try to also understand the reasoning of others.
Submodule 3.1 Quiz
Licenses and Attributions
Key Sources:
- Watson, Jeffrey (2019). Introduction to Logic. Licensed under: (CC BY-SA).
Next Page: 3.2 Disagreement