Assessing Arguments with Open Mind or Prejudiced Eyewear?

Assessing Arguments with Open Mind or Prejudiced Eyewear?

When we hear someone presenting an argument, do we assume they are right or wrong immediately? This article explores the impact of preconceived notions and biases on our understanding of arguments. Whether we believe the speaker, or if we need solid evidence before forming an opinion, varies greatly.

The Role of Prejudice in Assessing Arguments

Modern society often emphasizes the importance of impartiality in decision-making processes. Consider a juror in a criminal trial: they are expected to evaluate all the evidence and provide a verdict based on justice, not prejudice. This is why jurors must declare whether they can remain unbiased, much like Lady Liberty who holds a blindfold symbolizing impartiality.

Our personal biases, however, often color our perception of arguments. Even the most experienced juror can be disqualified if they adhere to their preconceived opinions, especially in serious criminal cases.

Believing or Questioning What is Said

Many individuals do not initially assume the speaker is correct or incorrect. Instead, they assume the speaker has a reason for making such claims. It is crucial to differentiate between believing and assuming the validity of those claims, which hinges on the reliability and evidence provided by the speaker.

No Prior Knowledge, No Judgment

Some believe that without prior knowledge, one cannot judge an argument. This is a valid perspective, as understanding and evaluating an argument requires some context and information. It is foolish to immediately dismiss or accept an argument solely based on one's preconceived notions, especially if there is no prior knowledge to support such judgments.

Assessment Based on Trust and Persuasive Skill

For many, the trustworthiness and intelligence of the speaker significantly influence their willingness to accept the argument. Some individuals may trust those who are smarter, assuming they are more likely to accurately present their views, while others may question their credibility if they are not easily trusted.

However, this trust should not be blind. If a person is respected and wise, their reasoning might be accepted over one's own, provided that their arguments are logically sound and supported by evidence. Conversely, if a person lacks trustworthiness, convincing evidence or solid logic is required for their argument to be considered seriously.

Political Context and Credibility

Political beliefs can also play a significant role in the assessment of arguments. For instance, when dealing with political issues on platforms like Quora, some individuals, particularly those from different political spectrums, may be viewed as lacking credibility. In such cases, arguments from certain groups (e.g., Republicans) often require unassailable evidence to be accepted.

Conclusion

Assessing arguments involves a blend of open-mindedness, trust, and the evaluation of evidence. Whether one initially assumes the right or wrong of an argument often depends on their personal biases, prior knowledge, and the credibility of the speaker. Maintaining a balance between these factors is crucial for making informed and impartial judgments.