In 1847, doctor Ignaz Semmelweis of Vienna General Hospital's First Obstetrical Clinic proposed a revolutionary new safety technique. The Hungarian’s idea helped his team significantly reduce the transfer of germs and bacteria from sick patients to vulnerable new mothers. At the time of his recommendation, doctor's wards had three times the mortality rate of midwives' wards; once his practice caught on, this difference disappeared.
Today, this practice is known as 'hand washing' and it is considered both basic and necessary hygiene for all medical personnel. For situations where the traditional ‘soap and water’ option is unavailable, alternatives such as hand sanitizer have been developed. The technique’s success has led to its adoption outside medical facilities.
But despite the obvious benefits, some contend we have gone too far in the direction of cleanliness. They point to over-sterilized environments as explanatory variables for the incidence of rare allergic conditions. The broader point is whether what applies to newborns and recovering mothers does so for healthy people going about their everyday routines.
The debate follows a fairly general pattern seen whenever a new practice is adopted. First, an idea is developed to solve a significant yet specific problem. Second, general principles are discovered and applied on a wider basis to similar issues. Third, new problems emerge which may be direct results of the application of these principles. The backlash against the original idea is the fourth and final step.
I’ve ranted and raved in the past about the ‘debate club mentality’ for fostering this idea of ‘allowing everyone their say’. Debates are healthy (and fun) ways to understand a topic better and work out answers to tricky questions. But if everything is subject to debate, I worry. A debates reframes the question - is this true and, if so, how should I live in harmony with this fact? - becomes - did my opponent convince me? or can I trust my opponent’s conviction?
Put another way, the ‘debate club mentality’ becomes dangerous when facts are framed as opinions and winners are determined not by the validity of the position but by the force of the argument. Rather than tying us all into a unified progression of building knowledge on shared foundations, it forces people to act individually because they “always know what’s best” for themselves and their families.
Footnotes / imagined complaints
0. Can we have an example?
Step one - The debate club is created to help students learn how to make arguments.
Step two - People begin to ‘debate’ outside of debate club.
Step three - Insightful bloggers notice debates occurring about topics not obviously suited for debate.
Step four - A backlash against debate clubs…
