You are all probably familiar with the term ‘Devil’s Advocate’—a person arguing from a point of view which they do not necessarily consider their own. Where does this peculiar term come from? What is the importance of playing Devil’s Advocate?—why would you argue for a position that you do not even believe in yourself? The answers to these questions are vital for any aspiring freethinker.
A fact of funness (no, not a word, sadly), for those of you interested, is that the term ‘Devil’s Advocate’ originated in the Catholic Church in the 16th century. During the canonization process—the process that one goes through to become a Saint—there is a ‘trial’ of sorts to see if the person is up to snuff. The Devil’s Advocate is essentially a ‘lawyer’ that argues against the canonization of the potential saint, in order to ensure that the person is truly Sainthood material. He makes sure there are no skeletons in the soon-to-be Saint’s closet (a service that the United States Government should look into acquiring, if they can spare any money on nonmilitary operations). Incidentally, late Pope John Paul II did away with the Devil’s Advocate position in the 1980’s, which does indeed explain a lot. Such as the canonization of the Opus Dei cult leader, Josemaría Escrivá—where was his Devil’s Advocate?
We must remember that the Devil’s Advocate is most of the time not really against the canonozation of the Saint prospect. He is most likely all for the person becoming a Saint. He is merely arguing against the person for the sake of argument, so that any unforseen factors will surface. And, as you can tell, this brings us to the commonplace usage of the term.
If a Rawlsian political thinker was to propose to me his view of what government should be, I might take on the persona of a Nozickian political thinker in order to challenge his ideas and prompt him to defend himself against opposition. I am a far cry from a libertarian, so why would I impersonate one in order to have a conversation with the Rawlsian thinker? If I also suscribe to Rawls’ theories, which I tend to, why not just agree with him on the face of the issue, and move on? The reason is, playing Devil’s Advocate is a very valuable asset to any discussion. If I were to become Nozick, in the metaphorical sense, and argue vehemently against the Rawlsian proponent, I would force him to provide sound support for every claim that he makes. In doing so, not only will I have a more full and comprehensive grasp of his political position, but he will also become either more convinced of his views if he is successful in defending them, or disenchanted with them if I am able to be persuasive enough as the Devil’s Advocate. Furtheremore, while I am arguing from Nozick’s point of view (a point of view that I tend to abhor), I gain a better understanding of an opposing point of view. In other words, I am able to walk a couple miles in the shoes of a libertarian. This bolsters my ability to argue against libertarian ideals in future debates. Or, if the libertarian shoes are sufficiently comfortable and stylish, I may decide to join the libertarian ranks.
Playing Devil’s Advocate is an important exercise for all of us as responsible freethinkers and citizens of the world. It allows us to see arguments in a new light. We are better able to objectively understand situations if we are able to adopt other people’s mindsets. I often will play Devil’s Advocate against a person who has similar views as myself, in order to strengthen my own views. I suggest you all take the time to play Devil’s Advocate in a discussion once in a while, to see what it feels like to be on the other side of the couch. Maybe it wont be as bad as you expected, or perhaps it will make your side all the more comfy.
5.08.2005
devil's advocate
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
If you can figure and know arguments against your own view, you can better argue for it. It also shows that you know your subject or view inside and out, backwards and forward. :)
It also shows that you know the other person's arguments and can thus fairly critique them and cogently make your case in light of theirs. Learning to play the "DA" is one of the best things to do, I think.
Arguing for a position that you really dislike can sometimes be somewhat unsettling or even plain disgusting. But other than that, if you can get over the difficulty of taking a stance you hate, I think you are right. Playing DA is the best thing you can do to help yourself in the long run.
This is a cool blog.
The origin of the term, I think, come from the process by which the r.c. church declares one human more 'saintly' than another. The vatican sends out priests to prove that the candidate is not a saint--something of a perversion of the scientific method. My sense it it's really a case of gossip-mongering and given that the 'scientist' is hardly objective...it's pseudo-science.
gundog99 and kyle offer a legit reason for this practice by philosophers--but I question the actual practice for two reasons (1) though we do indeed need to seek out and entertain objections to what we claim, we are the least likely people to *construct* good objections...a 'good objection', it seems to me, is one that comes from our intellectual blind spot--in short, the process is inherently disingenuous and time-wasting [why not invest your life in confirming your own thesis?], and, (2) if philosophy is to be relevant again, we must begin to abandon what constitutes contemporary philosophical practice, viz., writing in professional journals to other academic careerists and lecturing to captives in undergraduate programs. When we re-enter the greater society, we'll find plenty of advocates (and not a single devil).
It's a dandy question though and beautifully posed.
Devil's advocate... a really important role in any fields. However, sometime the role/ position of Devil's advocate has been misused, e.g. argue just for the sake to prove that one is right and the other is wrong. Winning the argument seems to be the utmost purpose, not gaining benefits/ advantages from the argument.
The proper word to be used should be "discussion" instead of argument? DA is not just an argument but is a discussion to improve things. When we discuss, we bring in our point of views; when we argue, we just put in whatever "weapons" to kill our opponents off.
The word "advocate" seems to me that the "devil" party should be rationale, not siding any party and be the middleman of the other two parties. He should not sound his opinion whenever he likes, but when he has consider all the elements/ point of views proposed by the two parties in the "discussion". Or else, from the very beginning, it would be a 2-1 parties discussion.
Logical, fair and rationale should be the motto of a DA, don't you think so?
Anyone schooled in rhetoric (A.K.A. anyone who graduated high school) knows that, in formal, persuasive document, it is standard to include a counterpoint. It shows the strength and viability of one's own argument. To present an opposing point and then make it seem less reasonable than one's own point only fortifies a conviction and is more likely to sway an audience. Seems kind of foolish, to contradict oneself only to contradict oneself again, but that's rhetoric for you. In conversation, it would be more functional and less contradictory because "playing Devil's Advocate" would really just translate as skepticism or the brainstorming process.
thats a pretty cool doubt you have here. I too shall ponder upon it.
if a person argues for the less accepted side and wins - then its a huge recognition.
Term Devil's advocate comes from the Roman Catholic church ; when a person is to be beatified..they quote miracles etc as reasons for
Priests who argue against are called Devil's Advocates
ppl who can do this tactic often are say teachers, marketeers etc ;-))
Screw playing devil's advocate. I get tired enough already of hearing people's dumb arguments when they say them. I don't need to be repeating these crazy things. But, if I think somebody else has a good point, I'll adopt their point and try to mix it in with my views.
It is devilish to disagree? Or is the egg just deviled (sp?). Thanks for reading my blog. I will read yours and hopefully make less a silly comment.
Actually, yesterday I demonstrated in San Francisco with other teachers. The school system in this city is horrifically evil and corrupt. I held up a sign which I considered cryptic. It said "Take him (Schwarzenegger, the governor) back to Hollywood--better yet: Austria." I'm really upset about "Congress's" voting on identity necessary for border crossing. European whites are not affected.
As a skeptic, I often find myself questioning my own values and decisions, as well as the views of others. While this may be frustrating for some, I believe that playing DA offers much more insight and perspectives than any other method of debate or argument. I do not believe that playing DA is arguing for the sake of arguing; I believe that playing DA is arguing to come closer to an all-inclusive conclusion (going on the assumption that conclusions can never truly be drawn). I cannot sincerely say that the name applied can do the concept of DA justice, but it does, however, express how profound the concept is. Playing DA is just as important as considering one's own values and opinion, and it makes evident who is and who is not open minded.
Devil's Advocate.....someone who takes the opposing view of a topic for the sole purpose of debate. By wanting to argue with someone...'you' are being 'bad' and on the 'wrong' side of an issue. Hence - arguing on behalf of the devil's point of view....does that make sense?? At least that's what being a devil's advocate means to me. ;)
I personally don't like the term 'devil's advocate.' It creates a stigma in people's minds like the comments that have already been posted that someone is right and the other is wrong. In a discussion between two opposing points of view no one is being good or bad, only subjective to their point of view. Most discussions are all about perspectives (especially value discussions, where it involves our personal and fundamental values) because people aren't going to agree if they hold different values. An example of this is from another posting between the 'quintessential corporate capitalist' and the 'philanthropist' (on philanthropy by Veronika Green). Both points are subjective and both won't agree to the others values, therefore there really isn't a right and a wrong between them just different.
Taking the position of the opposing side is benificial and an important role if you hope to make your arguments and views stronger. If you can't defend your position then you don't have a strong arguement and in order to create a strong arguement you need to know the opposing positions arguements. This is so you can counter them with logic and sound reasoning in order to defend your own position.
I'm all for playing Devil's Advocate when it comes to my own beliefs to be sure I am justified in believing what I believe. But I would never use it with someone I agreed with unless I got their approval in advance.
http://discussreligion.tripod.com
DEVIL'S ADVOCACY (DA) as established and practiced by the Roman Catholic Church is not unlike the methodology employed by institutions of government, religion, and business for millenia. One that has been time-tested and plays a central role in the maintenance and social acceptance of the authority of our institutions.
An institutional authority does not want his important decisions easily challenged or debunked, since the wisdom of those decisions reflect directly on that authority and his power. So on an important decision, he may appoint an investigator or advocate to identify the potential weaknesses and faults of a decision and to argue from the opposing viewpoint. However, the investigator or advocate gets his authority from and reports to the appointing authority, so his actual findings are subject to undue influence and control and are kept confidential.
A government leader may assign a so-called independent counsel to investigate decisions of his administration, only to exert undue influence to control the investigation process and block full public disclosure.
In the case of canonization, the Vatican assigns a DA who reports its findings directly back to the church authority. The findings of the DA may influence the outcome of the decision. However, to chill any criticism of its decision and authority by those outside its direct control, the Vatican can declare the issue closed since the hallowed and revered process prescribed by mother church and cherished by generations of members has already been completed and blessed.
CANONIZATION is used by the church to acknowledge the importance and contribution of different peoples of the world and spread its message of peace and love. But it also wields this powerful tool to expand its influence and power by bringing many new souls under its authority, particularly in countries with high birth-rates. Hence, the recent and numerous Latin America and African canonizations.
I often do this with other people without realizing it since I tend not to take a solid viewpoint on most subjects. The downside is that people tend not to realize that I am not particularly in favor of what I am supporting and often end up childishly attacking my character rather than my argument . . .
Post a Comment