When two positions conflict

I follow a number of ongoing debates in theology, philosophy, and science. Many of these debates have raged for centuries and yet there are still two or more competing positions. Listening to some of the dialogue in the debates is discouraging at times, laughable at other times. Just some thoughts on what makes some positions intractable and some debates unfruitful:

1. All theories are underdetermined by the facts/evidence that support them (Quine). (see previous post)

2. Large systems that are internally consistent are naturally resistant to change. From the inside, everything makes perfect sense.

3. The higher the commitment to being right the more pressure there is to compromise the truth.

4. The more we have invested in a particular position, the more reluctant we are to abandon it, even in the face of increasing evidence against it.

5. Rhetorical tools can be used to make our argument appear stronger than it is and to make our opponents appear weaker than it is.

6. Isolation and insulation create a fortress mentality that results in an entire industry of defense. This undermines attention to being self-critical. In the pursuit of truth self-criticism is far more important than criticism of the dissenters.

7. Living in the fortress (box) makes it difficult to think outside the fortress (box). The more time I spend inside my "system" the less I can visualize any reasonable life outside of it.

8. Failure to appreciate how powerfully our presuppositions determine what we will admit as fact, how much weight we will give the facts we accept, and where the facts will be placed in our overall conceptualizing.

9. Laziness: Unwillingness to be rigorous in the development of our system and to be able to admit what is deduction and what is induction.

10. Frustration: We grow tired of the endless debate. We weary of the back and forth of argument and counterargument. We then either give up the dialogue or take shortcuts that undermine a fruitful process.

11. There are matters of community respect, financial reward, associations, and other disincentives that make it difficult for me to fully surrender to the pursuit of truth even if it means yielding some of my cherished beliefs.

12. Pride: I think that it is a shame to me to have held a position that I must now reject or radically alter, particularly if I have argued loudly against it in the past.

13. Semantics: The same or similar terms are being used in different ways and with different meanings in competing systems. This creates confusion and misunderstanding.

14. Lack of respect: Failure to value the opponent and to take him seriously as a human being.

15. Fear: I will defend irrationally whatever I am afraid of losing. This is particularly ture if I am unwilling to admit to myself what my non-negotiables are and why they are non-negotiable.