From 1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christian Grothoff Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 13:29:45 +0200 Subject: add i18n FSFS --- .../blog/articles/en/devils-advocate.html | 152 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 152 insertions(+) create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/devils-advocate.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/devils-advocate.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/devils-advocate.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/devils-advocate.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..dfd5482 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/devils-advocate.html @@ -0,0 +1,152 @@ + +Devil's Advocate +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + +

Why the Devil's Advocate Doesn't Help Reach the Truth

+ +

by Richard Stallman

+ +

Playing the devil's advocate means challenging a position by saying +what a hypothetical adversary would say. I encounter this frequently +in interviews and Q&A sessions, and many people believe that this +is a good way to put a controversial position to the test. What it +really does is put the controversial position at a disadvantage.

+ +

There is an indirect way of playing the devil's advocate: to say, +“If I defended your position, how should I respond if someone said +XYZ?” This is less unfriendly than the ordinary devil's advocate, +who would simply say XYZ, but has the same effect.

+ +

Cunning adversaries try intentionally to obstruct thoughtful +consideration of a position they oppose. My cunning and unscrupulous +adversary (the “devil,” let us say) would not want my views +to get a proper hearing, especially if the devil thinks they are valid +and people might agree with them. The best way to prevent that is to +block me from making them understood.

+ +

The devil achieves that by twisting my words: presenting a misleading +context in which my words appear to mean something other than what I +intended. If this succeeds, it will confuse the audience and distract +them from the issue, in effect preventing it from being properly raised. +If this makes my words appear to mean something that the audience will +condemn, and which nobody present is really in favor of, I may need a +long explanation to get back on track. There may not be time for +this, or the audience might lose focus.

+ +

If I succeed in overcoming the first misunderstanding, the cunning +adversary would spring another, and another. If the adversary is +better at verbal fencing than I am, I might never get my point across. +If the stress makes me heated and I have trouble speaking clearly, the +adversary will count that a success. It matters little to the devil +whether it is my position that is vanquished or only me personally, as +long as the audience rejects my views.

+ +

If you are not a real “devil,” only playing the devil's +advocate, you would not really wish to prevent me from presenting the +intended point. But you may prevent it without intending to. Playing +the devil's advocate means you act hostile even though you don't feel +hostility. Once you decide to say what an adversary would say, you +are likely to do the job as well as you can, by imitating the toughest +adversary you can imagine: the cunning and unscrupulous one, whose +goal is to oppose rather than to get at the truth.

+ +

If you know what such adversaries have said to me, or if you are +skilled at imagining them, you would say the same things they do. +These statements could distract the audience and block consideration +of the issue, just as if a real adversary had said them. But if you +are not really my adversary, that result may not be what you really +want. If your goal was to shed light on the issue, your approach will +have backfired.

+ +

What I say on many issues goes against the establishment position, and +I don't expect people to agree with me without considering the issue +thoroughly, including the counterarguments. Indeed, it would be +almost impossible for anyone to avoid considering the establishment's +arguments, since everyone knows them by heart. To judge what is right +requires getting to the bottom of the issue.

+ +

The kind of questions that help get to the bottom of an issue are not +those that a cunning and unscrupulous adversary would pose, but rather +those of a thoughtful person who has not made up per mind (1). They +are questions that prise apart the aspects of the issue, so one can see +the various possible positions on each aspect, what they imply, and +how they relate. Very different from playing devil's advocate.

+ +

Thus, instead of trying to play the devil's advocate, I suggest +that you adopt the goal of “probing the issues.” And if +you are asked how you would answer if someone else asked a hostile +question, perhaps this essay is a good response.

+ +
+

Footnote

+
    +
  1. The author uses the gender-neutral third person singular +pronouns “person,” “per,” and +“pers.”
    2. +
+ + + + + + + -- cgit v1.2.3