I agree with Sam.
You might also want to think about how you frame your debates too. The words 'Parliament' and 'this house believes' are not value-free. This is why polling firms use wording like 'do you agree or disagree that...' in their questions.
A slightly deeper issue with framing, though, is what actually gets discussed and agreed at a meeting like this, because the motion or question is rarely the whole story. You typically find in intractable controversies that the two sides are not really talking about the same thing - e.g. the big nuclear debates of the mid-late 20th century were not really about nuclear power, they were about a whole range of loosely-connected issues like energy policy, foreign policy, atomic weapons, proliferation, accountability, openness, democratic control, with only limited overlap between the two sides. GM, as I'm sure you're aware, is just as complex, with issues not directly related to the technology, for instance corporate control of seeds, patents, monoculture, food independence, etc., being the big things people are actually talking about. So where do you draw the boundaries of your debate?
This format, correct me if I'm wrong, sounds like it assumes that once 'rhetoric' and 'abuse of evidence' are stripped out, 'rational' people will naturally end up sharing the same viewpoint, because facts are what's important. I suspect that will not be the case. Different facts are important to different people.
Anyhow, as a science writer and former debater I'm sure your event will be a lot of fun, but I suspect this format of debate will end up being just as tendentious as the university debates I used to chair!
Oli
-----------------------------------
Oli Usher
Communications, Marketing and Events Manager
Faculty of Mathematical and Physical Sciences
University College London
Gower Street
London WC1E 6BT
Tel: 020 7679 7964
Web: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/maps-faculty
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/uclmaps
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/uclmaps
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/uclmaps
-----Original Message-----
From: psci-com: on public engagement with science [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sam Kuper
Sent: 23 August 2013 22:56
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] An experiment in improving science in politics - 10 Sept
Hi Adam,
I see that http://rationalparliamentgm.eventbrite.co.uk/ says:
"Our rationalism is this: as individuals we want to listen to every view, distinguish between our own views and those of others and then make our own minds up. This includes hearing from scientists, researchers, campaigners, business people and political commentators.
A rational approach to political questions uses free and critical thinking, not dogma or scientism. We use publicly funded research as a starting point for discussion."
However, while this is very superficially appealing - like all good glossy marketing - it does not safeguard against unintentional biases or lacunae; and it doesn't really answer my questions below.
First of all, it does not appear to be internally consistent. Take the phrase, "as individuals we want to listen to every view". *Every* view? Really? If so, then why say shortly afterwards, "A rational approach ... uses *not* dogma or scientism."?
I'll cut to the chase. To which system of "rationality" is the rhetoric officer expected to adhere? Has it been formalised and proven consistent?
If so, what are its axioms and derivation rules?
If not, on what grounds do you feel entitled to claim "rationality"?
Regards,
Sam
On 23/08/2013, Adam Smith <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Do you think we can argue about political issues better with
> scientists and researchers in the room? Do you think politics needs a
> better balance between evidence and values?
>
> If your answer is no, look away now... If it's yes, come to the first
> sitting of the Rational Parliament, an experimental debating society
> I'm setting up with support from Simon Singh's Good Thinking Society,
> the Rationalist Association, and science writer and failed Science
> Party parliamentary candidate Michael Brooks.
>
> Our rationalism is ensuring that a political debate considers relevant
> research alongside personal values and experiences. Imagine Nuttsack,
> without the sack. Or fracking without all the financial interests on
> one side and the dogmatic greens on the other.
>
> In the Rational Parliament, we don't have a 'panel of experts' and a
> token Q&A sesh; everyone is in the debate together. A rhetoric officer
> points out where language is being used to limit our free thinking,
> motions are proposed and voted through or down, and signs are raised
> when debaters are being too scientistic or abusing evidence.
>
> The title motion for the first sitting is: "This House agrees that GM
> is a rational approach to meeting food demand."
>
> When? 10 September in London* - go here to register for FREE:
> http://rationalparliamentgm.eventbrite.co.uk/
>
> No apologies for cross-posting - we need all the promo we can get ;-)
>
> Thanks,
> Adam
> @AdamCommentism
> *If the format works we'd love to roll it out into other cities and
> towns, and will need help to do this, probably in 2014.
>
> **********************************************************************
>
> Commands - send an email (any subject) to [log in to unmask] with
> one of the following messages (ignoring text in brackets)
>
> • set psci-com nomail (to stop receiving messages while on holiday) •
> set psci-com mail (to resume getting messages) • signoff psci-com (to
> leave the list) • Subscribe here
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=psci-com
>
> Contact list owner at [log in to unmask] Small print and
> JISCMail acceptable use policy
> https://sites.google.com/site/pscicomjiscmail/the-small-print
>
> **********************************************************************
>
**********************************************************************
Commands - send an email (any subject) to [log in to unmask] with one of the following messages (ignoring text in brackets)
• set psci-com nomail (to stop receiving messages while on holiday) • set psci-com mail (to resume getting messages) • signoff psci-com (to leave the list) • Subscribe here https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=psci-com
Contact list owner at [log in to unmask] Small print and JISCMail acceptable use policy https://sites.google.com/site/pscicomjiscmail/the-small-print
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
Commands - send an email (any subject) to [log in to unmask] with one of the following messages (ignoring text in brackets)
• set psci-com nomail (to stop receiving messages while on holiday)
• set psci-com mail (to resume getting messages)
• signoff psci-com (to leave the list)
• Subscribe here https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=psci-com
Contact list owner at [log in to unmask]
Small print and JISCMail acceptable use policy https://sites.google.com/site/pscicomjiscmail/the-small-print
**********************************************************************
|