EricHoefler.com

Sean Carroll, writing for the Discover blog Cosmic Variance in a post called "The Grid of Disputation," makes an excellent point about cultural arguments and provides a helpful grid. Here is the most salient quote, for me:

If you want to play a constructive role in an ongoing cultural conversation, the sizable majority of your disputational effort should be spent engaging with the best people out there with whom you disagree — confronting the strongest possible arguments against your own view, and doing so with a respectful and sincere attitude.

He’s writing in the context of the atheist/religious argument, but the point (and grid) applies to all cultural arguments. I wish this approach were followed by the media and by politicians, particularly surrounding such important issues as insurance reform and economic stimulus. Here’s the grid Carroll developed:

Of course, the cheapest move in any argument is to label your opponent as "crazy" regardless of their actual sensibility. If you can discredit "the other side" through this tactic, then you can win even if your arguments are unsound. So, while in general I agree with the grid, I would revise it to the following:

Where "rational" is defined as adhering to logic and based on evidence. I would hope it goes without saying that an argument must always be open to differing views when presented rationally. It is the job of the media and of our politicians to keep national arguments in the lower-right quadrant as much as possible and to follow the guidelines of respectful debate. Sadly, they seem to be mostly failing in these regards.