How Do You Decide Who’s Right?
Image
One of the ways the Greek rhetors of old used to classify arguments was under the headings of ethos, pathos, and logos.1 Ethos referred to character and credibility: arguments appealing to one’s reputation, standing, experience, expertise, and trustworthiness. 2 Pathos referred to longings, drives, appetites—and what we today call emotions. Logos had to do mainly with facts and reasoning.
Those skilled in rhetoric were able to use all three in the work of persuasion, emphasizing one or the other depending on the situation.
The three categories of rhetorical argument also work pretty well for analyzing how we tend to approach conflicting views—and how we decide who’s right. In turn, that can help us better understand one another and better discipline our own thinking toward wise discernment.
A Default Thinking Style
As I’ve struggled to understand why many of my conservative Christian brethren see things the way they do on various hot topics of the day, I’ve come to believe that many of today’s conflicts—over medical science, vaccination, government health orders and suspected stolen elections—are not all that different from controversies I found myself embroiled in decades ago. In these past conflicts (over dress standards, music styles, Bible translations, etc.) and also in current ones, people do a whole lot of not understanding each other, talking past each other, and arguing in circles.
Sometimes it’s because a commitment to mutual respect and truth-seeking has taken a back seat to emotional venting and one-upmanship. But I’ve been involved in plenty of extended discussions and debates with individuals who are calm and respectful but can’t seem to even see my arguments. My case seems to be invisible. I think I’m seeing their arguments, but maybe it goes both ways and I’m really not?
One thing is quite clear to me: Sometimes it comes down to fundamentally different approaches to deciding what’s true. In a way, we’re trying to play a game together, but I’m playing ping-pong and they’re playing badminton (or maybe it’s ping-pong and dodge ball!). They often seem to be trying to engage with me in logos, when what really drives them is ethos or pathos. We may be using the same equipment and playing field, but we’re playing different games.
So I have a theory.
What if each of us has a default approach to deciding who’s right when we meet with conflicting claims? We could call this default thinking style or default concluding style. I’m tempted to go a bit deeper and call it epistemological orientation. Here’s the idea in a nutshell:
- Ethos: relies primarily and instinctively on the perceived trustworthiness of the source or perceived connectedness to the source; decides what’s true based mostly on who says so.
- Pathos: relies primarily and instinctively on an intuitive sense of trueness; decides what’s true based mostly on how the options feel.
- Logos: relies primarily and instinctively on available facts and sound reasoning; decides what’s true based mostly on logic.
Clarifications
I’m not really into rigid taxonomies when it comes to humans, whether we’re talking about Meyers-Briggs, the Four Temperaments, the Five Love Languages, or the latest fad, Enneagrams. So I’m not suggesting here some kind of explains-everything pigeon-holing approach to understanding why people have the opinions they do.
Certainly we all rely on “who says so” for quite a few things in life. As Christians, the very foundation of everything else we believe is “the Bible says.” But even our faith in the absolute trueness of God’s word to us is linked with both pathos and logos. The will and affections, spiritual state, and grammatical reasoning are all linked with the ethos of “God said it; I believe it; that settles it.”
So we’re all a mix, and that’s as it should be.
- We’re humans, not wild beasts (all pathos).
- We’re humans, not machines (all logos).
- We’re humans, not mere limbs or organs of our group/a trusted authority (all ethos).
That said, some people I know well definitely lean very heavily on ethos, and they never find my facts and logic very persuasive—except perhaps in service to the question, “Who should I trust?”
Others I know well rarely engage in consciously structured thought at all. That is, their deciding process is heavily intuitive, and they consistently struggle to identify reasons for strong opinions. When they do engage in dialog on a question, the reasoning is always self-contradictory, because it’s superficial. The real decision is made in a mysterious, unexaminable place, intuitively.
Because my style is logos, I find the pathos orientation most frustrating. I’ve often become judgmental. But the truth is that these folks are not necessarily undisciplined, lazy, impulsive, or random. There is sometimes a kind of rigor in their thought process, because deep commitments are included in their intuiting—and those can overrule other feelings and instincts.
Similarly, the ethos-oriented people aren’t always just delegating their thinking. They often evaluate sources by criteria, and use reason to decide who’s trustworthy.
And us logos-oriented folks don’t necessarily correctly identify facts or engage in sound reasoning, though that’s what we lean on as our approach to knowing truth.
Blessedly, in all of us, logic sometimes tempers excessive trust in a leader or group or in misguided feelings. The wisdom of elders or experts challenges our inner truth-sense or our logic. Relationships and stories stir our hearts to challenge cold logic or passive trust in authorities. In these ways, ethos, pathos, and logos—as thinking styles—check and balance one another.
So what, then?
If I’m right that we each have a style of knowing/deciding that tends to be our default, we each have a set of strengths and weaknesses that go with that. We do well to face these, leverage the strengths, and try to mitigate the weaknesses. We’re all called to glorify God by thinking, desiring, and acting in ways that please Him.
It’s not necessarily true that these three styles are equally good. In a particular culture, one or the other might be far overvalued and over-used and another neglected, with the result that what seems balanced is, in fact, privileging emotion or logic or group identity. Also, the Bible gives us unique insight into the nature of truth and the nature of human passions. These principles have huge implications for “how we decide who’s right.”
For reasons I might write about in the future, I tend to see logos as superior, on the whole. But, as an analytical type, I have to admit to a conflict of interest on that point. All that can be said with confidence is that a proper balance of ethos, pathos, and logos is necessary and good.
Meanwhile, I could stand to exercise a bit more patience and respect toward those whose approach to drawing conclusions is fundamentally different from my own. Couldn’t we all? Sometimes it’s a really difficult thing to do! It helps to remember what a mixed bag we all are, even at our best. We might think clearly but not for good purposes. We might think chaotically with noble intentions.
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in your sight, O Lord, my rock and my redeemer. (ESV, Psalm 19:14)
Notes
1 See, e.g., “Classical Argument.” Some include kairos as a fourth type, but kairos is really a quality of each of the other three when used well: A word spoken “in due season” (Prov. 15:23).
2 Because these categories overlap, views vary on the scope and focus of each in rhetoric. It’s common to see ethos defined much more broadly to include all ethical arguments. But when these arguments move away from the character of persons and groups involved, they quickly become nothing more than logical arguments using ethical premises. So I use ethos more narrowly.
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service. (Views expressed are the author's own and not his employer's, church's, etc.)
- 51 views
[Aaron Blumer] In these past conflicts (over dress standards, music styles, Bible translations, etc.) and also in current ones, people do a whole lot of not understanding each other, talking past each other, and arguing in circles.
The term that describes this phenomenon is being out of stasis. In ancient oratory, stasis played on the image of two people in conversation facing one another. That is, they were standing face-to-face and in alignment. That alignment helped them talk to one another and stay on topic.
When you and another person are not reaching stasis, there are several different types of questions you can ask about the arguments and claims being made:
- Is a claim of fact, that is, whether something exists or happened, being made?
- Is a claim of definition, namely, how something is or should be defined, being made?
- Is a claim of quality, how good or bad something is, being made?
- Is a claim of cause/effect, how something started and/or its resulting effects being made?
- Is a claim of proposal, that is, the best proposed course of action, being made?
So, while the rhetorical situation includes ethos, pathos, and logos, it requires stasis.
In Acts 23.10 means dissension.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Yes, I remember stasis. We did a whole unit on it I think (a lot of it out of Sharon Crowley, I think), though it also included ways to figure out what your own position is, using some similar questions, and others. I found that students often had difficulty with the concept of a thesis and how to form one—and even more difficulty laying out/summarizing differing views from a standpoint of analytical distance before engaging in counterargument.
I wanted them to write papers that way. Sometimes with some success. But I really think you have to start teaching this stuff in like 6th grade in simplified form. Some students take to it right away; most find it to be very foreign to their thinking habits. Which is why they need it!
Anyway, as far as thinking/deciding styles goes, “out of stasis” is certainly what will happen when one party is deciding based on ethos and another is deciding based on pathos or logos. But it’s a different kind of out of stasis, I think, though could overlap. What I mean is that when two parties are arguing a different thesis, they’re out of stasis. In English, they’re not engaging the same question. But in the case of different ways of deciding a question, they might also be out of stasis: they are on the same thesis, but have incompatible approaches to knowing.
Classical rhetoric has some assumptions built into it: even when it was going heavy on the pathos, it was inescapably logical. Though it employed ethos, pathos and logos, there was really an underlying commitment to logos as far as epistemology goes. So it looks to me … does that fit with what you’ve observed?
On Acts 23.10, I’m not up on the history of how stasis evolved as a term from classical to koine. The core idea is “stand,” but by Paul’s day it seems to have often meant to stand against. So… to rebel, or quarrel. In a way, it sort of parallels what has happened to our English “argument.” Many think it only means “have a shouting match.” A result is that people “argue” (disagreement) without realizing they’re not actually “arguing” (addressing the same thesis by the same rules) at all.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
First, to Don’s point, stasis refers to insurrection, dissension, and rioting in all of its NT occurrences except one (Heb. 9:8). But even in these occurrences, the connotation of “taking one’s stand” is still present.
Second, regarding classical rhetoric, based on my observations and reading, the Greeks learned early on that pathos was more powerful than logos and more important than ethos in winning the people’s support. Thus, you see the rise of demagogues and mob rule throughout the history of democracy in Athens. From what I remember, most ancient philosophers were skeptical if not down right hostile to democracy because of the power of pathos in exciting the people to action. Of course, it didn’t help that Socrates was sentenced to death based on such arguments. In their mind, the ideal ruler was the virtuous philosopher-king.
Just a question from an amateur -
Is there a term or concept that explains what happens when facts are used in ways that can bring about an agenda? In other words, purposefully choosing to ignore certain verifiable facts in favor of others because they would detract from a desired outcome.
I believe that in this information age, there is no lack of truth, but trying to distill the truth requires inhuman abilities - because there is so much of it. We are at the point where knowing which truth matters in which context may very well be the supreme challenge.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
I’ve seen it referred to as selective appeal to facts fallacy, also just colloquially as cherry picking.
By the purest definition, selective appeal to facts happens when a person knowingly ignores information that doesn’t fit their thesis and just presents the supporting facts. But I think a fallacy is still a fallacy when it’s an accident/just lazy.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]But I think a fallacy is still a fallacy when it’s an accident/just lazy.
I think this may also speak to the information overload factor - we have so much information, trying to determine what even is true is challenging, but then, ensuring you have enough truth to be sure not to be presenting a selective appeal to facts fallacy is even more challenging. A person can genuinely be trying and find himself presenting a fallacy nonetheless.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
We certainly have an information overload when it comes to certain issues, and that very well may be intentional. When we experience cognitive overload, we instinctively begin relying on our cognitive biases (or mental shortcuts) to evaluate information. So, we become less attentive to facts and logic and rely more on other factors to “decide who’s right.”
When someone understands a person’s or group’s predilection to certain cognitive biases, they can use that to shortcut the decision-making process and achieve their desired outcome.
Decision science is a fascinating field of study.
Yesterday, my wife was discussing covid vaccine information with an an anesthesiologist who is a member of our church. He said, “Even with my medical knowledge, I have trouble knowing what is true and who to believe.”
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman]Yesterday, my wife was discussing covid vaccine information with an an anesthesiologist who is a member of our church. He said, “Even with my medical knowledge, I have trouble knowing what is true and who to believe.”
There’s good reason why patients seek second opinions, especially in the field of medicine. When it comes to medicine and various other highly complex, ever-changing fields, defining truth is almost impossible.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
[JNoël]I believe that in this information age, there is no lack of truth, but trying to distill the truth requires inhuman abilities - because there is so much of it. We are at the point where knowing which truth matters in which context may very well be the supreme challenge.
What you express here is a large part of the problem. Like Aaron, I’m also mostly a logos-oriented person. However, to discuss and argue about facts means being sure of the facts. When anyone uses “facts” that may or may not be facts, then all of a sudden, ethos (as defined above) comes into play. Which sources do I trust to help me determine the facts?
Can I trust something touted as a fact by experts I know, or Fox, CNN, Snopes, Politifact (which ironically has the nerve to have “fact” as part of the name) or any of the many others out there? As one example, these days even the WHO or the CDC can be suspect, let alone overtly political sources. Since none of us can know all the facts, we have to decide which sources to trust, how far, and in which context.
Now what if we don’t know which sources to trust (and none of them are completely trustworthy) for a particular fact? Then, the above definition of pathos comes into play — after listening to multiple sources and being unable to completely verify them, my intuition (also not completely trustworthy, of course) will often come into play to help me figure out which “version” of that particular “fact” I trust. I might be completely wrong, of course, but in the absence of a definitive way to verify the fact, I still often have to “pick a side” realistically, and my intuition, flawed as it may be, then may be the deciding factor.
I prefer that facts lead the way, but in many cases, without an obvious better option, my gut ends up making the judgment. I reason the best I can, but without premises that are 100% correct, reasoning won’t work by itself.
Dave Barnhart
[dcbii]What you express here is a large part of the problem.
Thank you for fleshing out my ‘opinion’ on this matter. :)
So it comes down to this, I think - how do we know what really is true?
And if we cannot know what is true, is there any value in argument regarding anything outside of the Bible (ooops: seems we often cannot even stand firm on that when there are so many honest, scholarly, expert yet opposing positions on such a wide variety of topics in there!)?
The mental exercise itself is useful, and the very interaction can provide a means of gospel witness. But to be dogmatic about any position that is not a Hennebury C1 or C2 is dangerous, if not sinful. So perhaps a Christian should be reminded of our purpose: to be willing vessels for God’s purposes. Arguing for or against vaccination or who should be president just for the sake of those things has no eternal value. Arguing with the motivation of being a Gospel witness to others, on the other hand, does. This might cause us to re-think how we approach arguments so that they are actually useful.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
A couple of years ago, the excellent doctor who has given me wonderful and attentive care for twenty-five years, startled me when he said, “You realize that medicine is an art, not a science.” Think that one through.
G. N. Barkman
With most of the current medical controversies, people become confused because they don’t know how to weigh evidence. What they seem to see is “source says A and another source says not A,” when, in reality, “many, many independent and competitive sources say A; some with every reason in the world to say ‘not A’ also say A, and a few transparently politicized exceptions say B, maybe with a few others less transparently politicized.”
It’s really not that hard to arrive at the conclusion that A is far more probable than not A.
But that touches on another barrier. People have varying levels of granularity when it comes to “uncertainty tolerance.” What I mean is that, for some I’ve interacted with, zero uncertainty is acceptable. They must be emphatic at all times. The result is that they digest evidence poorly. If you’re in a huge hurry to reach >95% certainty, you’re going to have a certainty bias and gravitate toward answers that give you a greater feeling of certainty vs. answers that are better supported by evidence.
Others are a step up from that, and will tolerate either near-total certainty or complete uncertainty. They’re OK with saying “Who can possibly know?” or with saying “This is totally obvious” but nothing in between. So there’s still a granularity problem, and a “certainty over truth” barrier.
We’re likely to consume information better and make better decisions about who’s right, if we learn to be at peace with “high probability,” and be willing to act on what’s likely vs what’s certain. But, above all, we have to reject the error that because there is conflict on a question it’s impossible to know the truth.
If we look for it, we can find uncertainty on every question (is the earth flat?) but all opinions are not equal. The evidence doesn’t have equal quality and weight in reference to the question.
On vaccines, there is really not much mystery. It’s possible that there will eventually turn out to be side effects not detected in the trials. That’s true of absolutely any medical treatment of any kind. You can only know so much testing on thousands for months vs. millions for decades. But you can never get to ‘millions for decades’ without releasing the therapy first after due diligence and reasonably high probability of outcomes.
Don’t insist on certainty. You’ll be a lot less confused.
As far as medicine being art and not science…
It’s not that simple. In a conversation the other day, someone observed that one of the great things about cooking is that it’s half science and half art. It’s half chemistry and half imagination and technique. It seems to me that this is true of all the greatest things humans do: they are half science and half art. Medicine is certainly in that category because a human being is much more than a complex bundle of chemicals and processes. But even if we were just complex chemicals and processes, there’s too much inter-relationship to be mathematical about every aspect of it. So intuitive ways of knowing become important (aka art). Sometimes the mind processes and knows things deep down that we don’t ‘know’ consciously.
(I see this all the time playing the piano: some things require not thinking to execute properly. Other things can’t be done unless I think consciously, but about exactly the right thing and nothing else.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]But, above all, we have to reject the error that because there is conflict on a question it’s impossible to know the truth.
I wholeheartedly agree. It is also important that those who seek to discern truths that have been historically challenging be wary of settling on what they believe their research has led them to conclude. Too many Christians are dogmatic about matters that have been unclear for centuries. Similarly, too many people become settled about matters that cannot be proven today and may never be proven. This is true for vaccines, elections, economics, and many other currently hotly debated subjects. It’s all pride, of course, and the more knowledge a person gains, the more likely it is to happen (1 Cor 8:1).
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
Discussion