Recently, I have posted on certain subjects that tend to be a little contentious. I did not do it to inflame public opinion, I certainly do not have a following large enough to do that anyway, but because these subjects interested me. I was also hoping to have an opportunity to debate them with like minded individuals. When I first entered the amazing world of the internet, many years ago now, the ability to discuss a variety of subjects was one of the benefits that I immediately appreciated. I joined several forums that covered various different topics. These forums grew to be large and important arenas in which any subject from the most blasé to the most serious could be discussed. There used to exist then a simple rule that everyone was supposed to follow; attack the post, not the poster. Of course, not everyone did, but then that’s why the forums had moderators who would step in and sort things out after it all got a bit heated. I learned a lot of things from those days. The rise of alternative social media, such as Facebook, has seen the decline of many of these forums, and along with them the ability to have a debate.

Facebook is not a very good arena in which to have a serious discussion. I know, I have tried. The format of post and reply does not work very well, but then I think that it was never intended to be that kind of platform. Unfortunately, due to its popularity, Facebook has become a very important source of other people’s information, which has now developed into an equally important source of misinformation, but that is another subject. What is evident, however, is that today, if you post an opinion that is contrary to the dominant point of view, by which I mean the most repeated and occasionally the most aggressively repeated point of view, then you are not likely to be seen as inviting others to a debate on the subject. All too often the ‘if you’re not with us you’re against us’ attitude is the knee-jerk reaction of many.

William Blake stated that ‘without contraries is no progression’. Polarisation in debates is a common occurrence. It is not always the correct development, there might be more than two ways of looking at a subject, but it is by far the commonest approach. Very frequently, camps are established as ‘For’ and ‘Against’, in intent if not in name. In 1860 the Oxford University Museum of Natural History hosted what is now referred to as the ‘Great Debate’, an important discussion of the impact and possible consequences of Charles Darwin’s ‘Theory of Evolution’ as set out in his book, ‘The Origin of Species’. The debate was between religion, in the person of Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford, and science, represented by the biologist, Thomas Huxley. It should be noted that other participants were also involved, but Wilberforce and Huxley are most often seen as the champions of their respective corners. As the Theory of Evolution contested with one of the most basic principles of Christianity, God as the Creator of All, the discussion was inevitably going to get heated. The two orators swapped verbal punches with each other at times, but each also argued their points with reason and logic. Their shared intent was to win over the opinion of others through the use of rational argument. The general opinion is that Religion won the first round, but that Science eventually won the bout.

Neither Wilberforce nor Huxley believed that they could win the debate simply by browbeating the other into submission. Both they and their audience understood the role of critical thinking in assessing the arguments being put forth. Simply put, critical thinking is the ability to analyse facts to form a judgement. It requires a person to have a mind that is open to the presentation of new information and then, if the evidence warrants it, to change an opinion accordingly. Changing an opinion in these circumstances is not a sign of weakness; it is an acknowledgement that your former opinion was based on incomplete evidence.

The approach towards debating today does not appear to allow for this. I recently carried out a review, as an amateur interested in science, of the role of CO² in climate change and was surprised to discover that there was no clear and unequivocal explanation as to how it does what is commonly claimed for this greenhouse gas. Despite the fact that I certainly do believe in climate change I was, like so many others who hold a contrary opinion to the role of CO², labelled a climate change denier when I posted my findings. Evidence to correct my apparent misunderstanding of the subject is still awaited, but many people gave me the benefit of their opinion on the subject. On another topic I posted a counter criticism to an objection raised by a civil rights movement, which went almost as well. Debates today are not fuelled by facts but by opinions, many of which are not well informed. Indeed, it seems to me that the first response for many who are confronted with an argument as to why something that they believe in might not be entirely true is to take offence. Personal offence is the first defence.

This is not a position from which the debating of serious subjects can evolve in a useful manner. I suspect it is a position that some actually favour and encourage, however. Nonconformism or free thinking is not promoted, just strict adherence to the dogma. We, here in the West, might have had the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment but society does not appear to have advanced that far. Indeed, I am beginning to think that what we have been going through is an intellectual recession in the last decade or so. We live in an age where some people appear to want to see a society in which others must surrender the right to constructively criticise, or challenge with reason and logic, the beliefs of another person. Basically, removing the opportunity to express, or the existence of, contrary opinion. Although we live in an age where information is amazingly available at the press of a button, so few people show an inclination to check what they are being told. To be seen to be supporting the line is perceived as of greater value than knowing what the line is or even if it is actually correct in what it states. This lack of understanding on any given subject being supported is probably why the common response today is one of personal offence rather than an analysis of the facts presented.