flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (05/26/84)
Step 1: LISTEN. Step 2: listen some more. A big problem is that the two sides just ignore what each other is saying. Step 3: Each person, list what you think is the best argument, or at least a very popular argument, for the *other* side. State it so as to make it as attractive as you can. Then refute it. Do not begin the refutation until a new page, so that people might think you're on the other side. When you read an argument for your side written by someone else, decide before continuing whether the argument has been rendered fairly. Step 4: State what you think is the best argument for your side. Make it look like it could be an argument that you are reciting for the purpose of refuting as stated in step 3. That is, delay your signature by a blank page, and don't necessarily do steps 3 & 4 in order. The objective here is to maximize uncertainty (temporarily) as to where you stand. (Naturally, this is impossible for those whose positions are already well-known.) Step 5: Try (I predict failure) to refute the refutations of any arguments that you think should convince a reasonable person to take your side. Many people have expressed disappointment at the rarity of people who change their minds on this issue. (Often it turns out that they refer only to the other side.) What amazes me is that anyone does change views. There has never been any popular argument that is worthy of such a response. If one must decide on the basis of the arguments offered, I dare say that the only rational response is to be undecided. (BTW, I'm not neutral; but my position is not based on any of the common arguments.) And let there be no attempt to make a meta-argument here; such arguments just plain won't work. --Paul "The worth of an idea is inversely proportional to its popularity" Torek, umcp-cs!flink