No! Not all debates conclude...
A conversation between a 40+ and a 14+ reveals...
In a recent group discussion, I quipped 'History is more of one’s perception and is influenced by the power of narration or the evidence given that both of these may have bias'. I further added that I think that rational standards of an inquiry are not enough to avoid bias if the evidence available to the historian is itself biased, and therefore, I prefer any reconstruction of what would have happened or any analysis with reasonably high order corroboration'. As expected, there was less reaction to this view of mine and the topic. That evening, I shared this with my fourteen year old who now holds a view that philosophy is the toughest subject given that one must be able to present arguments that not only support one’s analysis or conclusion but also anticipate and lace it with responses for potential counter analysis or conclusions. He started inquiring further to help me in testing this view of mine on the nature of evidence and the evidence analysis.The following are his queries and my responses:
1- Is what you said based on your views on the subject discussed?
I replied ‘No’, and I added that the topic of discussion did not really matter to me, in other words, I am indifferent to it.
2- He then asked, Did the person who present his analysis/views hold any contra views in the past? Or did that person change his views in the recent times on this subject?In particular, was this triggered by any event?
I said that this was a possibility but I have no way of confirming it. He responded that it is okay to change views but asked if this person developed different view because he has new evidence or doubts on the past evidence or any new corroborating evidence. I said it is possibly not the latter given that he did not present any corroborating evidence of high standing.
3- He then queried, Do you think that there’s a chance that there was no corroborating evidence given the timeline of the event?
I said that the gentleman did raise this point by stating the timelines and added that it was recent enough-thus unlikely be lost in translation. However,he also did not find any corroborating evidence of high order. He rather presented a summary of in-congruent parallel events. I also added that his analysis felt like more of a reconstruction of an event based on some known outcomes.
4- His final question was did the person 'shut off' after your comment?
I said 'No', but this was probably because I didn't offer a debate but my compliments for his efforts.
After this, my 14 year old concluded that given that there was neither a contra analysis nor a corroborating evidence despite the recent nature of the event, and the fact that most of the views presented were an inference from the evidence but not the documented evidence itself- it is more likely the person was strengthening his argument with any easily available material.
As a parting shot, he said that not all debates are meant to conclude, and they do conclude only when debating parties have interest in evaluating and presenting evidence with equitable passion and room for self-doubt. He added, that a discussion like this where one doesn't switch sides and debate to uncover the event from a set of known outcomes is most likely to remain someone's opinion which has high likelihood to be biased, and could eventually be of no use to anyone should the evidence itself be biased.