8 Types of Disagreement That Can Fuel Controversy

Map of the Square and Stationary Earth, by Orlando Ferguson (1893) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

           Before I delve into any individual controversies as outlined in my previous post, I want to spend a few posts setting the parameters that define disagreement and controversy as I see them.   Since I am not an expert in this study anyone is welcomed to correct me, dispute what I say, or express any opinion that differs from mine.  After all, that's part of my objective in presenting the topics I will be offering in upcoming posts--for me to toss out my ideas to you and for you to provide some feedback, whether it be agreeing or disagreeing.  Hopefully we can learn something and have some fun doing  it.

Types of Disagreement

         This is something that could be looked at in many ways and perhaps you'll have your own breakdown in the comment section.   Here are some primary approaches to disagreement as I would describe them and examples to illustrate them (For each disagreement type I will use the generally debunked theory that the Earth is flat):

Fact based --- Sometimes scientific or historic in nature, but strictly based on proven observations and irrefutable statistics.  On my next post I will discuss this type of disagreement in greater depth.

Example:  The preponderance of evidence would tell most reasonable people that the Earth is round, but there are some who might argue otherwise, using actual facts to defend their side of the argument.

Fantasy based -- Nonfactual "proofs" may be intentionally fabricated in order to defend an argument; they could be the result of misinterpretation of existing data; or any other offering of evidence that often can sound completely credible but is untrue.   If unchallenged, an argument based on fantasy can win against facts that sound questionable or undesirable.  The arguer resorting to this tactic may not even realize the proof is fantasy, but when they are aware that their proof is not true then they are lying

Example:  If a Flat Earther presents anecdotal evidence of an explorer who actually has seen the edge of the flat Earth and offers authentic looking documentation that seems to be true, the non-discerning believer could be fooled into believing the story, and, in fact, the presenter might actually believe the evidence being presented.

Pick and choose blend --This is commonly used in political arguments or in other cases where so-called life stories might be presented.  The convenient truths will provide a foundation to make the contrived additions of evidence fit the structure of the argument.  This approach might also be used when the arguer has hard factual data, but made-up facts are added into the mix because that arguer is relying on memory, hearsay, or commonly accepted fallacies.

Example:    The Flat Earther might use actual mathematical calculations and scientific observations to give their argument the heft of credibility and substance and then add false evidence that would be difficult to use as proof when presented on its own.

Outside influenced --This can be what a friend or someone else who is trusted has said.  It can be the perception within a community, group, or organization.  Many outside sources including media, books, and internet can present things as fact thereby leading many to believe them to be true whether or not they are actually true.

Example:   "My best friend, who is an honor student and a science major working on his PhD, told me the Earth is flat and because it came from him, I believe him."  Or, "I read it on the internet."

Tradition based --A belief that is part of the culture or social group that has always been accepted as true and continued to be presented as true by generations that follow.

Example:   If a tribal community living on an island in the Pacific had always held the belief that the Earth is flat and it was a part of their legends, art, songs, and everything that had been passed generationally, then they would be subscribing to a tradition based belief system if this is what was used to argue the point with one who suggested the Earth is round.

Faith based-- This would primarily relate to scriptural references and their interpretations.  A religious institution or group might even use a proof as part of their doctrine and credo. This type of argument is rarely effective among non-believers or those of a different belief system.

Example:  Both sides of the Flat Earth argument can offer Bible scripture that appears to support either argument.  Some will argue that a number of verses state that there are "four corners of the Earth" or "ends of the Earth".  There are also verses that describe the Earth as a circle or an orb.   Similar references can be found in the scriptures of other religions.

Educated manipulation -- Many accusations have been directed toward educational institutions for disseminating bias, untruth, or convenient fact-bending.  This can be the result of faulty textbooks, poorly designed curricula, or teachers on a mission to shape the minds of their students.  Certain college professors have particularly been singled out as having some special agenda that they are trying to promote.

Example:   The science teacher or professor who is teaching that the Earth is flat (let's hope this isn't happening anywhere!) and shaping the belief systems of their students.

Politically affiliated-- This is especially relevant at this time of year.  Adherents of a party line are often persuaded about what to believe because this is the party platform.   Committees and others probably have devised this platform using one or more of the previous methods, but in many cases a party follower believes what the party believes and does not question anything beyond that.

Example:  Let's say that a government party takes hold in a less sophisticated part of the world and after taking power effectively convinces that populace that the Earth is flat.  All travel is banned due to the danger involved.  Those who dispute the new policy are killed or imprisoned.  After a while there is general acceptance that the Earth is flat and the population is under that absolute control of the government.  After all, some governments strive for complete control.  Isolating the people can work.   The Flat Earth is now true because the government says it is.

Some Final Words

            As you might have noticed, there are a number of ways these points can cross over and interconnect. This breakdown I hope provides a starting point which you can use to examine your own personal views about various issues and those of other people.  Once you have determined where your belief is coming from it will give you a better opportunity to clean up the weak points of your argument and look for ways to discredit your opponent's views.  Or it might make you realize your beliefs are incorrect.

           At this time of the year especially many facts and fallacies will be bantered about from many quarters.  It's a good idea to be informed in order to have a better idea of what the real truth is--especially for those who are planning to vote in the upcoming U.S. elections or elections in other parts of the world.  Also, big issues loom on many horizons throughout the world.   To be informed helps put all of these things in better perspective.

            And what I'm discussing in these introductory posts doesn't only apply to big issues of nations and the world.  Clear rational thinking is important in solving interpersonal conflict, making good choices in ones own life, and even making wise decisions in personal business such as finding employment, deciding on a educational path, or buying a product you've seen advertised.  Controversy involves deciding and decision making is something we all do on a daily basis.

            I hope this hasn't been overly dry or obvious.   If we are going to debate--if we can call it that--we want to establish ground rules to make the experience more fruitful and enjoyable for all of us.  Please give me your feedback in the comments and come back on Wednesday for "The Truth".

           Does the above outline seem right to you?     Would you add anything else to this list?    Do you have a different approach as to what constitutes the roots of disagreement?    Which of these approaches do you find yourself using most often?    Which approach do you dislike the most?

Related articles

• How to Argue Better: Recognizing the 12 Most Common Logical Fallacies
• The "Agree to Disagree" Principle - A Positive or Excuse?
• Is the Earth Flat?