Is is possible to see both sides?
December 18, 2003 7:39 PM Subscribe
Is is possible to see both sides? Should we all try to see both sides of an issue before making a decision? Perhaps the National Center for Policy Analysis would be a good place to start. There are sections for
Global Warming, Social Security, Environment
and Federal Spending, just to name a few. In many cases the opposing viewpoints are written by the lawmakers themselves. There is even a section titled Debate Central, in case you like that kind of thing.
They should add sections on whether or not the holocaust occurred, whether caucasians are genetically superior to people from other races, and whether women are naturally submissive.
It's important to see both sides of every issue, don't you think? And as this web site makes clear, it's especially important to see the other side of those wacky liberal issues, like global warming and women in the economy. On the other hand, maybe it's not such a good thing to see the other side of issues like the sanctity of fetuses.
posted by alms at 8:59 PM on December 18, 2003
It's important to see both sides of every issue, don't you think? And as this web site makes clear, it's especially important to see the other side of those wacky liberal issues, like global warming and women in the economy. On the other hand, maybe it's not such a good thing to see the other side of issues like the sanctity of fetuses.
posted by alms at 8:59 PM on December 18, 2003
I like the NCPA on some issues. But on Global Warming though...."according to NCPA Adjunct Scholar S. Fred Singer, there is no convincing evidence that the global climate is actually warming." S. Fred Singer also denies that there is any connection between chloroflourocarbons (freons) and the Ozone Hole. He's done widely respected work in his past career. But....he doesn't currently do climate research in any form. And he's devoted the last decade to denying the ozone story and also Global Warming.
Hey! I followed the NCPA's "Global Warming" links and they went to they "Competitive Enterprise Institute" - what's that all about? A think tank refers me to another think tank for authoritative info on a scientific issue?......Well, I can't find any actual links to scientific research or research institutions there. Hmmm......in fact, the NCPA's "E-Team" seems to be a hack propaganda mill.
The NCPA's "Both Sides" section is far better - but the strange implication of the NCPA's "Both Sides" subsection is that the NCPA recognizes that it's main site coverage is one-sided. Odd.
Still, any attempt to present other views is good. But the NCPA - as a whole - is far from an unbiased institution.
There are nuances to this, to be sure - such as the fact that about 1/3 of the NCPA's "Antitrust" writings advance the case that Microsoft is being unjustly targetted by federal prosecutors for it's monopolistic practices.
The NCPA seems to be, as far as I can tell, an institution which advances pro-business arguments. This is not bad per se. But I'd say that they should be more up front about it. In the end "Think Tanks" tend to be, essentially, the paid mouthpieces of their funders.
posted by troutfishing at 9:01 PM on December 18, 2003
Hey! I followed the NCPA's "Global Warming" links and they went to they "Competitive Enterprise Institute" - what's that all about? A think tank refers me to another think tank for authoritative info on a scientific issue?......Well, I can't find any actual links to scientific research or research institutions there. Hmmm......in fact, the NCPA's "E-Team" seems to be a hack propaganda mill.
The NCPA's "Both Sides" section is far better - but the strange implication of the NCPA's "Both Sides" subsection is that the NCPA recognizes that it's main site coverage is one-sided. Odd.
Still, any attempt to present other views is good. But the NCPA - as a whole - is far from an unbiased institution.
There are nuances to this, to be sure - such as the fact that about 1/3 of the NCPA's "Antitrust" writings advance the case that Microsoft is being unjustly targetted by federal prosecutors for it's monopolistic practices.
The NCPA seems to be, as far as I can tell, an institution which advances pro-business arguments. This is not bad per se. But I'd say that they should be more up front about it. In the end "Think Tanks" tend to be, essentially, the paid mouthpieces of their funders.
posted by troutfishing at 9:01 PM on December 18, 2003
milovoo - welcome to Metafilter! Don't take it personally - you are not your post, and you can post again.....and you should.
posted by troutfishing at 9:07 PM on December 18, 2003
posted by troutfishing at 9:07 PM on December 18, 2003
Perhaps the problem is the polarized insistance that there are only two sides to every story?
posted by Satapher at 9:23 PM on December 18, 2003
posted by Satapher at 9:23 PM on December 18, 2003
I like the NCPA on some issues. But on Global Warming though....
But the NCPA - as a whole - is far from an unbiased institution.
Agreed on both counts, it's a bit of a pandora's box really,
but I like the idea, quite a lot. It seems like a good model.
I also have only read a percentage of what's on there, so
it will be interesting to see what other people find.
Perhaps the problem is the polarized insistance that there are only two sides to every story?
Also true, but useful to see where the nuances are between two strong viewpoints.
(or how far outside them on some issues)
posted by milovoo at 10:40 PM on December 18, 2003
But the NCPA - as a whole - is far from an unbiased institution.
Agreed on both counts, it's a bit of a pandora's box really,
but I like the idea, quite a lot. It seems like a good model.
I also have only read a percentage of what's on there, so
it will be interesting to see what other people find.
Perhaps the problem is the polarized insistance that there are only two sides to every story?
Also true, but useful to see where the nuances are between two strong viewpoints.
(or how far outside them on some issues)
posted by milovoo at 10:40 PM on December 18, 2003
The NCPA (located almost right across the street from me - represent!) is an OK resource for seeing both sides of controversial issues - they do an excellent job at that. My main problems with their approach are:
1. They are *too* impartial. By this, I mean they present issues which are not really debatable (in my opinion), such as global warming and abortion rights, as if both sides had equally compelling arguments. This could partly be my own bias, as I'm liberal, and conservatives are generally the ones who debate against science.
2. They often have politicians write their content. So you are no really getting an objective analysis as much as subjective political PR papers.
posted by sixdifferentways at 11:44 PM on December 18, 2003
1. They are *too* impartial. By this, I mean they present issues which are not really debatable (in my opinion), such as global warming and abortion rights, as if both sides had equally compelling arguments. This could partly be my own bias, as I'm liberal, and conservatives are generally the ones who debate against science.
2. They often have politicians write their content. So you are no really getting an objective analysis as much as subjective political PR papers.
posted by sixdifferentways at 11:44 PM on December 18, 2003
Also true, but useful to see where the nuances are between two strong viewpoints.
(or how far outside them on some issues)
The point Satapher was trying to make is that you can't have an intelligent discussion of any topic until you realize that there are more than two sides to debate.
This whole left vs right crap is really getting not only annoying, but destructive. What happened to all the viewpoints in between?
posted by CrazyJub at 5:12 AM on December 19, 2003
(or how far outside them on some issues)
The point Satapher was trying to make is that you can't have an intelligent discussion of any topic until you realize that there are more than two sides to debate.
This whole left vs right crap is really getting not only annoying, but destructive. What happened to all the viewpoints in between?
posted by CrazyJub at 5:12 AM on December 19, 2003
Multidimensional too.
And what of other species? From high up in it's tree, the crafty mudskipper eyes the humans - always rushing about, babbling and shrieking.....
No one seemed to have picked up the distinction between the NCPA's "We're going to look at both sides of an issue now" section and it's HOME page, which is anything but unbiased. That's why I mentioned the Global Warming section which referrred me (for information on the issue) to the Competitive Enterprise Institute which, in turn, referred me to the "Heartland Institute" which then.....hey! *compact flourescent light bulb turns on in head*
"It seems like a good model." (milovoo) - Or at least a good idea, in principle - sort of in the way that Christianity was a good idea, per the basic teachings of Jesus, but then somehow things got out of hand - and then there were these crusades and then the inquisitions with their bodies broken on the rack.......
posted by troutfishing at 7:55 AM on December 19, 2003
And what of other species? From high up in it's tree, the crafty mudskipper eyes the humans - always rushing about, babbling and shrieking.....
No one seemed to have picked up the distinction between the NCPA's "We're going to look at both sides of an issue now" section and it's HOME page, which is anything but unbiased. That's why I mentioned the Global Warming section which referrred me (for information on the issue) to the Competitive Enterprise Institute which, in turn, referred me to the "Heartland Institute" which then.....hey! *compact flourescent light bulb turns on in head*
"It seems like a good model." (milovoo) - Or at least a good idea, in principle - sort of in the way that Christianity was a good idea, per the basic teachings of Jesus, but then somehow things got out of hand - and then there were these crusades and then the inquisitions with their bodies broken on the rack.......
posted by troutfishing at 7:55 AM on December 19, 2003
They are *too* impartial. By this, I mean they present issues which are not really debatable (in my opinion), such as global warming and abortion rights, as if both sides had equally compelling arguments. This could partly be my own bias, as I'm liberal...
Gee, you think?
*shakes head in wonderment at people's amazing ability to confuse their own preferences with objective reality*
posted by languagehat at 8:09 AM on December 19, 2003
Gee, you think?
*shakes head in wonderment at people's amazing ability to confuse their own preferences with objective reality*
posted by languagehat at 8:09 AM on December 19, 2003
I agree that one's political spectrum is almost always multidimensional, but a lot of individual issues have to be either yay or nay.
Should we provide funding for X? Should we make Y illegal? etc. It's often only when you combine issues that it gets more complicated.
Do we have enough funding for X, well, only if Y is underfunded.
Should people with excuse A be allowed exception from policy B.
(even foreign relations where it could be argued that there are at least as many viewpoints as there are countries
the issues are generally things like, should we attack country X, should we provide aide to country Y, see what I mean?)
2. They often have politicians write their content. So you are no really getting an objective analysis as much as subjective political PR papers.
I guess my big issue is corruption, I am bothered by the undue influence of corporations and back-room deals and I believe that the will of the people is a fine way to govern if given free exercise. How is this related, well, often the purpose of policy is distorted by the amendments and riders added in pork barrel politics, and with the policy statements I can at least get an idea of what the original intent was (and then disagree with it)
posted by milovoo at 8:34 AM on December 19, 2003
Should we provide funding for X? Should we make Y illegal? etc. It's often only when you combine issues that it gets more complicated.
Do we have enough funding for X, well, only if Y is underfunded.
Should people with excuse A be allowed exception from policy B.
(even foreign relations where it could be argued that there are at least as many viewpoints as there are countries
the issues are generally things like, should we attack country X, should we provide aide to country Y, see what I mean?)
2. They often have politicians write their content. So you are no really getting an objective analysis as much as subjective political PR papers.
I guess my big issue is corruption, I am bothered by the undue influence of corporations and back-room deals and I believe that the will of the people is a fine way to govern if given free exercise. How is this related, well, often the purpose of policy is distorted by the amendments and riders added in pork barrel politics, and with the policy statements I can at least get an idea of what the original intent was (and then disagree with it)
posted by milovoo at 8:34 AM on December 19, 2003
Much of the time when someone wants you to "see both sides of an issue," they want you to give equal weight to both sides, regardless of the actual weight of evidence on either side.
I'm sure if it were in the corporate interests of the NCPA's backers to claim that the earth was actually cube, I'm sure they would argue that we look at both sides of that issue as well.
posted by moonbiter at 9:15 AM on December 19, 2003
I'm sure if it were in the corporate interests of the NCPA's backers to claim that the earth was actually cube, I'm sure they would argue that we look at both sides of that issue as well.
posted by moonbiter at 9:15 AM on December 19, 2003
... that the earth wsa actually a cube, ... Cripes.
posted by moonbiter at 9:17 AM on December 19, 2003
posted by moonbiter at 9:17 AM on December 19, 2003
I'm going to disagree with you milovoo. You say that one example of a simple, polarized choice is "Should we make Y illegal." However, let's say that Y is recreational drugs. A polarized debate would go something like this:
PRO-LEGAL: "Whoo, freedom, yadda yadda, no interstate commerce, right to freedom of consciousness, etc."
PRO-ILLEGAL: "Supports terrorists, think of the children, we should care about each other, etc."
See - they're talking past each other, not to each other. That's what happens when you apply bivalent logic to complex issues.
An orthagonal, or multi-dimensional approach to the same topic would address the topic differently:
- Is there room here for discerning between federal law and state law, and perhaps re-asserting states' rights?
- Is there a meaningful distinction to be made between legalization and endorsement?
- What interests, hidden or obvious, intentional or accidental, are served by the options we face? What relevance should we assign to those interests?
- What is the nature of any obligations that a person has to his government, and the government to its people?
See what I mean? The polarization as it is currently entrenched does not readily admit the kind of intelligent discussion points I listed.
I could readily construct a similar example for the abortion debate, or the global warming debate.
The binary structure of most current sociopolitical discussion is an artefact of our apparent cultural preference for having an answer instead of having a solution strategy.
I wish more people would understand the significance of that distinction.
posted by yesster at 9:53 AM on December 19, 2003
PRO-LEGAL: "Whoo, freedom, yadda yadda, no interstate commerce, right to freedom of consciousness, etc."
PRO-ILLEGAL: "Supports terrorists, think of the children, we should care about each other, etc."
See - they're talking past each other, not to each other. That's what happens when you apply bivalent logic to complex issues.
An orthagonal, or multi-dimensional approach to the same topic would address the topic differently:
- Is there room here for discerning between federal law and state law, and perhaps re-asserting states' rights?
- Is there a meaningful distinction to be made between legalization and endorsement?
- What interests, hidden or obvious, intentional or accidental, are served by the options we face? What relevance should we assign to those interests?
- What is the nature of any obligations that a person has to his government, and the government to its people?
See what I mean? The polarization as it is currently entrenched does not readily admit the kind of intelligent discussion points I listed.
I could readily construct a similar example for the abortion debate, or the global warming debate.
The binary structure of most current sociopolitical discussion is an artefact of our apparent cultural preference for having an answer instead of having a solution strategy.
I wish more people would understand the significance of that distinction.
posted by yesster at 9:53 AM on December 19, 2003
Laughing my ass off. This "think tank" 501(c)(3) charity is being used to push various forms of privatization agenda.
For some amusement, do a quick Google search on this organization's address, and you find many, many other organizations who apparently have their mail shipped to the same small suite on Penn. Ave:
- The American Fund for Charities (referred to fairly often with the tag, "c/o Chapel & York Limited")
- A law firm, Retureta & Wassem
- The ALS Association, a charity group fighting ALS (more commonly known as Lou Gehrig's disease.)
- Another law firm, Intellectual Property Law Group, LLC.
- The Lebanese American Council for Democracy
- The United States/Israel Science & Technology Commission
- Yet another law firm, The Law Offices of Paul Strauss & Associates, P.C.
- Aircraft Electronics Association (AEA)
- The "Government Affairs" extension of yet another law firm, Holt, Mulroy & Germann.
- Faith and Action, a group dedicated to the "...effort to reintroduce the Word of God into the public debate surrounding legislation and policy matters. "
- GEM Technology's Washington office, an "award-winning, minority, woman-owned, small disadvantaged business that provides diverse security, environmental and engineering services to Federal, State and local governments, and to large private sector corporations."
- Filnet, a "minority owned web solutions company."
- The National Conference of Insurance Legislators, "an organization of state legislators whose main area of public policy concern is insurance legislation and regulation."
- The Family Benefits Association, Inc., "a non-profit organization established for the purpose of providing special health and personal security benefits to our members."
And so on - there are quite a few more businesses at that location, but I got bored after the first 8 pages of Google hits. I get the feeling that there's a really tired secretary sitting at a desk somewhere, opening a LOT of mail...
posted by FormlessOne at 1:50 PM on December 19, 2003
For some amusement, do a quick Google search on this organization's address, and you find many, many other organizations who apparently have their mail shipped to the same small suite on Penn. Ave:
- The American Fund for Charities (referred to fairly often with the tag, "c/o Chapel & York Limited")
- A law firm, Retureta & Wassem
- The ALS Association, a charity group fighting ALS (more commonly known as Lou Gehrig's disease.)
- Another law firm, Intellectual Property Law Group, LLC.
- The Lebanese American Council for Democracy
- The United States/Israel Science & Technology Commission
- Yet another law firm, The Law Offices of Paul Strauss & Associates, P.C.
- Aircraft Electronics Association (AEA)
- The "Government Affairs" extension of yet another law firm, Holt, Mulroy & Germann.
- Faith and Action, a group dedicated to the "...effort to reintroduce the Word of God into the public debate surrounding legislation and policy matters. "
- GEM Technology's Washington office, an "award-winning, minority, woman-owned, small disadvantaged business that provides diverse security, environmental and engineering services to Federal, State and local governments, and to large private sector corporations."
- Filnet, a "minority owned web solutions company."
- The National Conference of Insurance Legislators, "an organization of state legislators whose main area of public policy concern is insurance legislation and regulation."
- The Family Benefits Association, Inc., "a non-profit organization established for the purpose of providing special health and personal security benefits to our members."
And so on - there are quite a few more businesses at that location, but I got bored after the first 8 pages of Google hits. I get the feeling that there's a really tired secretary sitting at a desk somewhere, opening a LOT of mail...
posted by FormlessOne at 1:50 PM on December 19, 2003
Formless one - Great research. You know, there are actually only two offices in Alexandria, Va., where all the other think tanks and fake citizens groups, which infest American politics, are based.
Those two offices get mail for thousands and thousands of political interest groups. They are in two suits across from each other in the hall of a drab office building. One office deals with republican groups, the other democratic ones. They had to cross a human with an octopus to get a secretary with the necessary extra limbs to deal with all the paperwork and phone lines. But now one of the human-octopi is out of work because the republican office outsourced to India. The poor creature's only real friend - the other of it's kind - works the democratic office and so it doesn't want to leave the building. It's embarrassed. Where would it go, anyway? So it currently lives in the boiler room and subsists on handouts and lunch scraps salvaged from the dumpster.
posted by troutfishing at 6:11 PM on December 19, 2003
Those two offices get mail for thousands and thousands of political interest groups. They are in two suits across from each other in the hall of a drab office building. One office deals with republican groups, the other democratic ones. They had to cross a human with an octopus to get a secretary with the necessary extra limbs to deal with all the paperwork and phone lines. But now one of the human-octopi is out of work because the republican office outsourced to India. The poor creature's only real friend - the other of it's kind - works the democratic office and so it doesn't want to leave the building. It's embarrassed. Where would it go, anyway? So it currently lives in the boiler room and subsists on handouts and lunch scraps salvaged from the dumpster.
posted by troutfishing at 6:11 PM on December 19, 2003
« Older Comedy = Tragedy + Distance | Cheaper! Cheaper! More! More! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Yes. And I'm quite guilty of taking an opposing point of view if someone has an extreme view on something, merely for the sake of argument (in a classical sense), even if I don't hold the view myself.
So, no, we shouldn't.
posted by wackybrit at 8:15 PM on December 18, 2003