I started maintaining this blog back in February of 2006, shortly after turning 30.
After 15 years of sporadically producing informal writing about the ways we argue, I have reached middle age. At least, I think I have.
As my 45th birthday approached, I asked, "When does a person become middle-aged?"
Turns out there's an argument to be had there.
According to the US Census Bureau, I'm already five years in. They claim middle age begins as early as 40. The American Psychiatric Association's DSM, however, pushes the start of middle age up to 55. They're giving me a decade before I have to apply the label.
When I bump into these kinds of disagreements, I'll often look for a more recent and/or reliable publication to settle things. According to a peer-reviewed article in a 2020 issue of The Lancet, middle age starts at 45.
The article is less than a year old, and The Lancet is a widely respected medical publication. So I think I'll go with... Of course, it was a 1998 article in The Lancet that gave us the anti-vax movement, and according to an October article in The Lancet, the spreading of that kind of disinformation presents a threat to public safety.
I suppose someone reading this could use The Lancet's argument to present a strong case against using The Lancet to support my claim.
And there we have it. Once again, either everything or nothing's settled. It all depends on how we argue.
I've spent these years rolling a question around in the back of my mind, "How should we argue?"
Here in the middle of, or at the threshold of, or on the cusp of middle age, I'm ready to make some recommendations on that front:
- We should argue less and inquire more.
- We should ignore unimportant arguments.
- We should engage the important arguments.
- We should always ask why we're arguing.
- We should take arguments only as seriously as they merit.
No comments:
Post a Comment