"Yes? or No?" When philosophy becomes the courtroom.

In a recent and lovely chat with my supie he was trying to prove a point and asked me to make a decision on a topic that I thought included one or more grey areas. "No, don't explain." he said "Just answer yes or no." In other words, do I believe a) or b)? I believed neither, but humoured him by choosing one of them prefixed with, "Ah, I see, we are in court now?" It was mildly funny at the time, you probably had to be there.

I did not emerge from that chat with my supervisor agreeing that representationalism about pain was a tenable position. I was not sure why at the time because sometimes, with me, things need to percolate before the solutions present themselves. In this case the solution presented itself during the walk from the car park over two weeks later.

It turns out the problem was the courtroom style of limited choices. Just how good is your philosophical position if you must force agreement from your opponent? The forced choice meant that one of the premises, rather than being a sturdy foundation for a conclusion, had become... crumbly... Of course this is not necessarily fatal to the overall argument, it might be an easily rectified dent, the position might hold just as easily without the premise in question. Nevertheless the point is that if I am forced to agree with an argument's premise I am never going to emerge from a discussion convinced of its conclusion and neither should anyone else.

What his request for my 'yes or no' answer should have highlighted was that we have a disagreement in what may be a significant area: he thinks the issue is a black and white one while I think coming down emphatically on either side is extreme and indefensible. If I am forced to choose what I think is the least problematic answer I have not technically agreed to anything other than a little congeniality for the sake of a quiet life.

It's something to watch for in my own arguments too, if I have to say to someone, "Just answer the question, yes or no." I might as well give the ground to my opponent straight away. If the premise is vital to your position it is much better to get a little sidetracked and delve into the grey area in question to convince your opponent of your premise. Your major point might be lost for a while but you'll still be arguing which, as far as I'm concerned, is the ultimate point of it all.