Why Can Reasonable People Disagree?

Author: Tim Platnich

Date: August 12, 2024; Updated August 19, 2024

What I mean by reasonable people is people who think critically about issues. What I mean by thinking critically is explored in my previous post, here.

For our purposes in this post, reasonable people are people who have formed opinions on issues after some research and analysis. Their opinions are tentative in that new research or demonstrated errors in their analayis may change their opinions.

At the other end of the spectrum from those that form opinions based on reason are persons who have strongly held opinions based on their feelings about an issue. These people are emotive people rather than reasoning people. They feel what is right first, then, perhaps, they try and rationalize their opinions with reasoning. Why I say, 'perhaps' is many emotive thinkers don't even care to try and support their opinions with any reasoning. They are satisfied that their feelings on the issue are sufficent. It is 'their truth'. Some people in this category have arrived at their opinion by following the opinions of others on social media and adopting, without question, those opinions on the subject.

This post is not for emotive thinkers because if they disagree, there is no way to resolve the disagreement. Each has their own truth. End of story.

So why do crticial thinkers disagree?

The first reason for disagreement on an issue may be the different definitions of terms being used. For example, let's take the case of the old philosophy question: if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? If one defines 'sound' as being the energy generated by the impact of the tree with the ground - the creation of the sound waves, then of course the tree falling makes a sound whether or not anyone 'hears' it. On the other hand, if one defines 'sound' as the reception of sound waves by an ear or by sound recording equipment, and none is present, then no sound is created. Agreement on a definition resolves the issue entirely. If agreement cannot be reached on a definition, further discussion may be pointless.

If you find yourself in disagreement with a reasonable colleague on an issue, check that you agree on the defined terms you are both using.

Related to definitions are assumptions. Indeed, sometimes definitions are assumed without any consideraton. One party assumes the other party is using the same definition and this proves to be false. Other assumptions may exist that underly and give context to each party's stated opinion. When possible, these assumptions are best stated upfront to avoid confusion. Disagreements about assumptions is a common stumbling block to further, substantive debate.

Another reason for disagreement between reasonable people may relate to the factual underpinings of the issue involved. What are the facts being relied upon? Simple factual issues can be resolved by resorting to a web-based search. What was the population of Calgary in 1972 compared to now? Which has a larger population, Calgary or Edmonton? It is pointless to argue about simple facts that can be readily determined by cursory research.

Other facts may be more complex and require data analysis. In such cases, what data is being relied upon? Are you and your colleague using different data. How can the difference in data be reconciled? If it cannot be reconciled, the reason for disagreement may come down to the different data being relied upon. Is the use of one person's data superior to the other person's data? Is there more data available that has not been considered.? Perhaps the debate needs to be adjourned for further data investigation.

If the data is agreed upon in the sense that the same data set is being used by you and your colleague, is continued disagreement a case of different technical interpretations of the same data? This may be an exercise in mathematical or statistical analysis. Compare notes. Can the different technical interpretations of the data be reconciled? For example, on the issue of whether wildfires in Alberta are getting worse, one needs to consider what is meant by 'worse' in considering the data. If worse means more numerous, the tend-line in the data for number of fires must be considered. If worse means more hectares burned, the tend-line in the data for area burned must be considered. How that data in both cases is assembled and displayed, with a trend-line, is a technical matter. The trend-line may be affected by the starting and ending points of the data, for example.

If agreement can be reached on the data, the next point of contention may be the implications of the data. Now that we agree on the data, what does the data mean? What are its implications? What theory may explain the data? Does the theory about the data give rise to predictions? This is where things get interesting. Up to this point, the disagreements may have been simply techincal in nature. Now we are getting to the good stuff.

For example, the agreed data may show a correlation between X and Y. What does this mean? Ice cream sales and crime rates are strongly correlated. Does this mean that criminals buy more ice cream? Or, that eating ice cream leads to criminal activity? Or is their another factor involved - like heat waves which may cause both.

If you and your colleague have gotten this far, and still disagree, then you may have competing theories on the issue. How can this disagreement be resolved? The answer is by testing the theories going forward with new data and continued analysis. After reasonable debate, both parties should go away better informed about the issues under discussion. Further, the parties may want to revisit their opinions on the issue to determine whether revisions are required.

Update: Upon further consideration there is another possibly explanation for why reasonable people may disagree. The reason is different underlying values. Different underlying values may make disagreement inevitable. This difference may affect everything from definitions, assumptions, data selection, analysis and conclusions. Values may advertently or inadvertently form a lense through which everyone sees the world.

Can values be directly debated? I would say the answer to this is yes for those who accept the concept of critical thinking and are willing to subject their values to critical analysis. Maybe this question needs to be asked before any debate is undertaken.