Bo We Reason Together.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1629, 21 December 1912, Page 16

Bo We Reason Together.

This is unquestionably,, and in porno sonsc prc-omincntlj, an ago of discussion. Indeed, from several distinct points of viow, it may bo assoTtd with confidenco that no former timo can boar comparison with the present in this regard. The multitudo that ia reached by tho printed word is incomparably gieater than that whioh, in uny previous ago of tho world, was seriously addressed by tho expononts of varying viows on th« questions of tho timo. Equally striking is tho range of the topics which form tlio subjectmatter of discussion. On tho ono hand, thero is an enormous mass of problems occupying the attention of specialists in the various sciences; and on the other hand, in tho domain of politics, of ethics, ol economics,'of social customs and ideals, of human interests generally, old-estab-lished convictions and traditions are constantly being challenged iu tho forum of general popular discussion., A.nd finally, tho instrumentalities of discussion have been multiplied iv it'll almost bewildering rapidity Congresses, conventions, conferences, societies, academies," clubs, organisations of every conceivable nature, and dealing with every conceivablo interest, abound in a degree that a few decades ago was wholly unknown; and magazines, Proceedings, Transactions, etc., already thick as leaves in Vallombrosa. show no sign of slackening the increase of their infinite variety. In spite of this vast extension of tho function of disoussion in our modern lifo —perhaps indeed because of it—there is ono highly important asptct of discussion In which we seem to have retrograded rather than progressed. It must often Impress the lover of keen and solid debate that, in tho very places where this might .most bo looked for, w» find it almost wholly absent. To take the most conspicuous of recent discussions, the Presidential campaign just closed: it furnished no such crop of genuine debate, debato with backbone, as the older political contests of our country used to supply. The combatants seldom, came to grapples, and when they did it was to the very largest outlines of their. respective positions that the discussion was oonfined. This may, in a measure, be ascribed to the oircumstances that the public issues pushed to tho front in the past few years have been made to bear an ethical rather than a political complexion; and yet one has only to 'recall the great debate between Lincoln and Douglas in order to have an instance of a discussion, in which a profound ethical motive was dominant, and yet which continually kept close to . the exact Constitutional, historical, and political questions involved. One can hardly help feeling, in this and in other instances, that with the spreading out of the field, tho enlargement of the audience, and the multiplication of the quantity of argumentative matter, fed to til© 'public, there has gone a certain softening of the / metal,-, a certain blunting of the edge, of the sword of debate.

In ono particular direction, there is n practical suggestion that we think is worth making toward the encouragement of more effective discussion. There is a class of meetings which 1 has ooine very largely into vogue in recent years, of which the express objcct—and an admirable 0110 it is—is to match against each otlwr opposing views on disputed questions; tut wo doubt very much whether the method usually, adopted. is that best suited to the purpose. The standard plan is.to have the various, views presented, some able or prominent representative being c'hossn as spokesman for eachthe bulk of the time is divided by strict limitation between, them,, and a 'certain modicum of time, is/then,allowed, for'.'brief rejoinders.. ~Th«. dinntw,.of-'.the, Economio Club, of' a'very good illustration of this typo of meeting:. _ But is it really and truly discussion ? £> it debate ? It does have the real and. great merit of causing many persons who. might otherwise have heard only one side of a case to hear the other alsoj but the effect is much'the'tame as tljough they had read' two quit© separate articles on the subject, or listened on two different occasions to two speakers taking the two opposing views. A little more than this is presented, it is true; but the fragmentary criticisms made upon each other by the speakers are apt to be of little value, and do not' oompensate for tho loss involved in tho brevity imposed upon the original statements by the neoessary limitation of the tlmo.. We ere inclined to think that the purpose of testing the strength of the two sides would be better served by having only one flide formally presented and then opening the door to criticism on a largo scale. Let tho advocate of regulation of monopoly, for instance, have ample time to present his case; and then let thoeo who are competent to answer him show the flaws I in. his reasoning, or the considerations that offset those he adduced. To be sure, tho conduct of a discussion of this kind would require both skill and firmness on the part of the presiding officer; but if well managed it would be a real debate, and infinitely more conducive not only to enlightenment on the subject in question, but .also to tho promotion of habits of solid thinking, than the mere placing alongside each othor of two ex parte statements, however able, without tho vital spark of real debate passing botween them. Nor is it only, in explicit debate or con- j troversy that the strengthening of habits of vigorous criticism is to be desired. It is by' no means owing solely to tho inaccuracy or sensationalism of- newspapers that queer extravagances in assertions of fact, in expression of opinion, and in forecasts of the future, so often assail the j eyo of the public. Men of standing in science, in literature, in the pulpit, at the ■ bar, break out in tho most surprising manner on subjects concerning which an ordinary 6euse of responsibility would seem to suffice to impose caution and sobriety of treatment. A paper read at the meoting of a national medical association will solemnly ascribe to the.use of alcohol an alleged tremendous decline of the birth-rate in a. few : years, without asking the question whether ther-s.has been any recent startling increase in the nee of alcohol; the director of a gK»t laboratory of'experimental evolution will; make, in cold print the preposterous statement that what keepi 'tho best people in the country from multiplying their kind is tho enormous burden to. which; they are put in supporting the feeble-minded and. insane in State institutions; a man will stand up before a grave assembly of men and,women interested in the treatment of crijno, and tell them, without tho faintest glimmering of a sense of responsibility, that crime is not at all diminished by law as hitherto existing; on the oost of living nothing is so nonsensical as not to have been said in quite -respectable quarters. Indeed, in the multitude of these counsels is their safety; wo nil got into the habit of paying no attention te them unless they happen to agree with our own prepoasossions. But at least wben uttered in a publio assembly, it ought to be regarded as the proper thing for those who know better to speak out and set them down where they belong.— New York "Nati«n."