2.4: Inquiry is a Social Enterprise

Science and philosophy are composed of many branches of inquiry. Inquiry or investigation is the effort to figure something out, to get at the truth of some matter. Fruitful inquiry that produces lasting knowledge and understanding is typically a community affair. As individuals, all we have to work with is our own individual point of view based on our own limited experience and whatever thought processes we are used to or comfortable with. In this predicament, an individual has only new evidence to help check for errors. Worse, many of us are quite adept at only noticing the evidence and reasons that support what we already think. This is the problem is known as confirmation bias. So, as individuals we are stuck with very limited evidence and little significant error checking. But as a community of inquirers, we can pool our diverse evidence and review our various thought processes. This is how inquiry has always proceeded. The current understanding in an area of science or philosophy is the result of a great many conversations, sometimes going back centuries or even millennia, some in person, some in print, some on YouTube.

Once a position on some matter is considered, we want to ask what arguments can be advanced in support of or against that position. In order to get at the best reasons, it is vital that our community of inquirers include people with diverse perspectives and diverse ways of thinking. Otherwise, we are liable to miss important evidence, overlook good reasons, or fail to find flaws in the arguments we do consider. A community of like minded people will tend to share the same blind spots and, hence, ignore illuminating alternative perspectives and neglect the error checking these can provide.

We then want to examine the quality of the arguments for and against a given position. Evaluating flawed arguments often points the way towards other arguments and the process of formulating, clarifying, and evaluating arguments continues.

This method of question and answer in which we recursively formulate, clarify, and evaluate arguments is known as dialectic. Dialectic looks a lot like debate, but a big difference lies in the respective goals of the two activities. The goal of a debate is to win by persuading an audience that your position is right and your opponent’s is wrong. Dialectic, on the other hand, aims at inquiry. It flows from curiosity rather than self-assertion. The goal in dialectic is to learn something new about the issue under discussion. Unlike debate, in dialectic your critic is your friend. Critical evaluation of your ideas and arguments brings new evidence and reasoning to light. The person you disagree with on an issue is often the person you stand to learn the most from (and this doesn’t necessarily depend on which of you is closer to the truth of the matter).