Short Answer: Purpose of the discourse is to be proven wrong. As a fallibilist person, meaning a person who believes that everything they know could be wrong, meaning we navigate the world with provisional truth and keep on improving that truth. So a fallibilist need a system in which we can put our claims to what we know to scrutiny. So you state or share something you believe is true and others might challenge your view and if you believe your understanding of what you claimed as knowlege was wrong in anyway, you become very happy because eliminating pseudo-knowlege or non-sense or knowing limits of applicability of your knowledge, all make you more knowledgable. If you are in pursuit of knowledge, discourse is for you, but it ain't easy because people don't want to be proven wrong as they claim to be. So here is the attribute of a good discourse:
- Two or more people enter on a discourse because they believe at least one person claim to know something
- All people uses full fire power of logic and reason, otherwise it's felt disrespectful to other, so authority plays no role. No succumbing to authority
- People who wins in discourse are the one who are proven wrong, that way they learnt what they believed to be wrong or limitation of applicability of that belief.
Purpose of discussion is to not as specific as discourse. It generic. It's partly sharing information, chit-chatting, sharing perspectives, a bit of mild discourse. Discussion can lead to dissemination of pseudo-knowledge and non-sense because ideas are not explicitly challenged and because pseudo-knowlege and non-sense is easy to create and disseminate specially with modern tech and genuine knowledge is hard to come by, it's not effective mechanism for knowlege creation. Discussion has general requirement not to offend someone, and refutation or proving someone wrong generally offends to the person who is proving wrong. Discussions is perfect for folks, who can't take refutations openly.
Long Answer At SystemsWayAcademy, we have both discussion and discourse lounges. Many of these lounges have similar names, which raises curiosity about the differences between them. The distinction is nuanced, and the implications are significant—perhaps even humongous. While you may sense a difference in the conversational styles of the two channels, sensing is not the same as knowing.
In this article, we will clarify the differences so that when you engage in discourse, you'll understand how to participate effectively—and, more importantly, when it might be best to refrain from engaging. Discourse can be challenging for those who are unfamiliar with its conventions.
Conversation As A System
Humans engage in conversation, which can be understood as a system. A system has a purpose, structure, and components that interact with one another. When we label systems differently, it usually indicates some distinctions among them. Terms like talk, discussion, dialogue, discourse, debate, conversation, and chat represent various kinds of conversational systems.
While it's not necessary to explore the differences among all these terms, we will focus specifically on distinguishing discourse from the others. This understanding will help clarify what discourse is and how it functions.
Purpose of Conversation As A System
The purpose of conversation is multifaceted, but one key aim is to disseminate or create knowledge. Here, "knowledge" refers to what individuals believe to be true, which may range from genuine knowledge to pseudo-knowledge or even nonsense—especially if they cannot distinguish between the three. We can refer to this collection of beliefs as "mental models." Mental models are interconnected webs of knowledge that individuals have acquired over time.
In conversation, the speaker's goal is to transfer their mental models to others. Since mental models cannot be physically transferred, they are encoded in language. The listener then attempts to decode this language and determine whether what is being communicated is knowledge, pseudo-knowledge, or nonsense.
In any mental model dissemination system, there is typically a person who implicitly or explicitly claims to have more extensive or superior mental models than the listeners possess. Using language as a tool, this person seeks to enhance the listeners' understanding. Sometimes, the goal is not only to improve comprehension but also to convince the audience that talker or the system taler represent possess superior knowledge, thereby justifying that the or system they represent shall be granted the authority to act on behalf of others.
Monologues As A System
A monologue involves one person speaking while others listen. Examples include TED Talks, podcasts, webinars, interviews, and lectures, all of which focus on sharing mental models. The host or guest often claims, either implicitly or explicitly, to possess superior mental models that the audience lacks and aims to convey these insights through language.While monologues are efficient systems for disseminating ideas—allowing one person to reach thousands, or even millions, with the help of modern technology—they also have significant limitations and can contribute to the spread of pseudo-knowledge and nonsense.
Debate As A System to the rescue
Phlosopher understood their own and people's ability to discern knowlege from pseudo-knowlege and non-sense long tim ago and they tried to solve this problem by gettin another person on the podium who tries to crticise the ideas that are being disseminated. Thought people are not good in discerning knowledge from pseudo knoweldge, their ability improve significantly if there is a person who does this job for them. In debate , each person tries to make a point that what they are saying is knowlege but what others are saying is not . Debate As A system for knowlege dissemination is much better than monologued.
Why Debate Is Failing in Its Purpose
While debate is an improvement over monologues, it is still failing to fulfill its purpose. Many attribute this failure to social media and technological advances, but that is misleading. Social media, as a vehicle for information, cannot be held responsible for the content being transmitted through it. The more pressing question is why people consume and believe in pseudo-knowledge and nonsense.
A rarely discussed issue, even among intellectuals, is the role of epistemological and dissemination frameworks. Although I can't delve deeply into these topics in this article, here's a brief overview. Epistemology concerns how we determine what we know as knowledge. Most people, often without realizing it, rely on the Platonic concept of True Justified Belief (TJB). According to this view, if a belief is justified and true, then it is considered knowledge. While this framework once advanced human understanding, it is now inadequate. Not only does it halt the progression of knowledge, but it also facilitates the creation of pseudo-knowledge and nonsense.
The root of the problem lies in the assumption that truth is knowable and that authorities possess the truth or can ascertain it. This belief leads us to think that once we uncover the truth, we are closer to what we perceive as reality, even if it turns out to be nonsense. Such a mindset closes us off to the possibility of being wrong, which stifles knowledge creation and fosters stagnation. When this belief is paired with the idea that certain authorities cannot be wrong, any challenge to this perceived truth or criticism of the authority can provoke strong, often violent reactions. Fortunately, our constitution helps protect dissenting voices, allowing for disagreements to be expressed without escalation.
This epistemology of knowledge creation is further intertwined with the dissemination framework of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos (EPL), which emphasizes trusting claims based on the credibility and authority of the speaker.
When both our epistemological and dissemination methods are flawed, it's crucial to address these issues directly. Blaming social media or technology for the spread of pseudo-knowledge and nonsense is akin to blaming Einstein for the atomic bomb; while that technology can be harnessed for both destructive and constructive purposes, we are aware of its potential uses. In the case of epistemology and dissemination methods, however, we often don't realize we're using faulty frameworks, leaving us unaware of when we might be misapplying them.
The consequences of these misunderstandings are pervasive and can be seen across the globe, leading to significant disruptions in our understanding and communication. We are, in effect, damaging the world without even realizing it. Addressing the root of these issues is essential for fostering genuine knowledge and meaningful discourse.
If you want to not contribute toward the mess the world is turning into, then you must understand Who causes more harm: Benevolent person or malevolent people
Most people are fundamentally good most of the time, as long as the systems in which they operate support their goodness. While there are fewer malevolent individuals, the harm they can inflict is often greater than that caused by benevolent people. However, this only holds true if benevolent individuals understand what is right and wrong.
The situation becomes more complicated in the context of knowledge creation and dissemination. Monologues, debates, and discussions can inadvertently facilitate the spread of pseudo-knowledge because malevolent individuals fully exploit the weaknesses inherent in the True Justified Belief (TJB) and Ethos, Pathos, and Logos (EPL) frameworks, even when they are aware of their misuse. These frameworks are often the only ones known to the audience and even to well-meaning knowledge holders, who might use TJB and EPL without realizing their limitations.
This gives malevolent individuals an advantage over benevolent ones. Yet, since there are typically more benevolent people than malevolent ones, the overall balance leans toward the positive. The issue arises when benevolent individuals inadvertently produce pseudo-knowledge using TJB and disseminate it through EPL, unaware that they are contributing to a harmful environment. In knowledge creation and dissemination, good intentions can be of little value; as the saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
The problem with TJB and EPL is that they do not allow benevolent individuals to correct their mistaken beliefs. Consequently, the world suffers not because of a few malevolent people, but because many well-intentioned individuals are unknowingly causing harm. The solution lies in moving away from TJB as an epistemological framework and EPL as a dissemination method. By adopting more robust and reflective approaches, we can empower individuals to create and share knowledge more responsibly, ultimately reducing the spread of pseudo-knowledge and nonsense.
Want to Dive Deeper on this topic? Invite Us
- Talk in your Company
- Leadership Offsite
- Join Public Event
Discourse As A System to the rescue
Similar to the combination of True Justified Belief (TJB) and Ethos, Pathos, and Logos (EPL), the primary purpose of discourse is twofold: knowledge dissemination and knowledge creation. In a discourse, two or more individuals share knowledge with one another. Then they refute each other often resulting in realizing what they believed was pseudo-knowlege or non-sense and then give those aware.At times discourse often resulting in the creation of new insights neither party had before. In discourse, both participants agree on several key points:
Recognition of Fallibility: Both individuals acknowledge that their knowledge could be wrong or incomplete. This recognition means they are interested in identifying and removing pseudo-knowledge and nonsense, which benefits both parties and contributes to the creation of knowledge.
Use of Logic and Reason: Each participant employs their full intellectual capacity to challenge each other's positions. Failing to do so would be disrespectful to the other participant. It's akin to a sports team choosing to play lightly—while that might make sense in some contexts, it undermines the very purpose of discourse, which is a sincere quest for knowledge.
Embracing the Challenge: Ultimately, in discourse, each participant "prays" to the universe (or whatever they believe in) to lose the debate. This unique attribute of discourse emphasizes that the objective is to let go of pseudo-knowledge and nonsense. The one who loses emerges with improved mental models, making this a significant benefit for any knowledge seeker.
Are We Engaging in Discourse Already?
You might wonder whether we are already engaging in discourse when we converse, and if we inherently recognize our fallibility. The answers to these questions are complex for two reasons:
Fallibility Is Not Universal: A person can be a fallibilist in one context but not in another. People compartmentalize their beliefs, making fallibility a situational rather than a universal trait.
Lack of Awareness: Many people are unaware of when they are being fallible. This is why confirmation bias is so prevalent; a fallible person is unlikely to seek confirmation of their beliefs. Instead, they should be actively looking for refutation.
Additionally, people's self-perceptions often do not align with their expressed preferences, especially concerning fallibility. This disconnect is common and can be particularly pronounced in discussions about knowledge.
The Value of Discourse
One of the most valuable aspects of discourse is that even if we can defend our positions against rebuttals, we become aware of the boundaries of our knowledge. We recognize assumptions we hold, which can lead to deeper understanding.
While many people may believe they are fallibilists, it's easy to test this assumption. When you feel strongly about a belief, are you willing to engage in public discourse? In private, it's easier to cling to your point of view, even if it's nonsensical. However, in a public setting, others will likely challenge your use of TJB and EPL, making you more vulnerable. So role of audiance becomes very important.
Audience has two fold roles. The audience though does not get involved in discourse, they can sense if their own belief itself is questionable. Thought audience who may not be emotionally mature to admit that what they know was pseudo-knowlege or non-sense , but when they see discourser publicly admit that their position was wrong, they audiance can move their position in their mind without feeling public humiliation. The discourser however should not feel humilated before they entered the discourse on wrong belief that they are fallibalist. A fallbalist is an emotionally mature people who feel happy when proven wrong and has no issues publicly declare they are wrong and feel pride in it and earn respect from that. So the audiance plays another role. In front of audiance, it becomes diffiuclt for person to act fallibalist because audiance is judging the discourser who enteredin discourse voluntarily. Wihtout audiance, I regular meet people who claim to be fallbalist and without 5 minutes start to defend absolutely non-sense position. Why, because being fallibalist is hard. Letting go of your believe that you held as true is hard because as a truth seeker you believe that truth exist when it does exist but we have no access ot it so we can get close to it by letting our eleive go when proven wrong. When we beleive all our knowlege is povisional truth so when proven wrong, we shall get rid of that provisionality.
In public discourse, it can become evident that we are not as fallible as we think. In our view, one of the toughest challenges is not climbing Mount Everest or working hard; it is becoming truly fallibilist. Yet, this is also one of the most rewarding pursuits one can undertake. I'll explore this further in a later discussion.
If you're interested in engaging in public discourse, feel free to reach out! For private discussions, we do offer sessions at a fee. Let me know what works for you!
