OpEdNews - Diary: On matters of Advocacy (meta-advocacy)

We have an education problem in our nation I believe lies at the core of our political struggle today. Where education is an issue, advocacy lies among the top tools necessary for improvement to our mutual benefit. To be an effective advocate, your position on matters must be completely defensible. Others must know your reasoning is solid. This is where credence and overall merit are established. Without this, your efforts only serve to further muddy the waters despite the best of intentions. This effort is the first of a series intended to help anyone interested in the practice of advocacy be effective, credible and potent. In this, we all benefit mutually in that our position is one with clarity so that our intent is viable and deemed worthy. This is a matter of personal responsibility in that poor advocacy harms all of us just as solid advocacy benefits us in like kind.

::::::::

I've spent some time looking back over a number of advocacy efforts, by others as well as my own, with the goal of understanding the core elements of solid and effective advocacy. This is a matter of growing importance as we all continue to build on the one to many publishing power of the Internet.

With this new publishing power comes some new personal responsibility as well. Poorly considered advocacy undermines solid advocacy efforts, for what should be obvious reasons. This is not to say we all need to be on message, because we don't. Our free society demands this be true. We do however, need to be coherent if we are to contribute to our general greater understanding of the issues at hand.

Before I get to the meat of this piece, let me encourage you to consider what I've presented here with a critical eye toward matters of truth in reasoning and clarity of mind. This is kind of heady stuff, but worth it for the better reasoning it brings if nothing else. I'm trying to better understand how it is that people learn to agree. Your comments are encouraged.

In the intro, I put forth the idea that solid advocacy must be defensible. Put another way, this means it cannot be dismissed on matters of form and structure. The reasoning must be sound, the elements must be clear. Matters of fact and matters of faith must be properly applied in context if the overall message is to be heard with any credence.

Truths -vs- beliefs:

If something is to be accepted as true, it must be true always in all times, places and for all people.

If something is mostly true, it then is actually a set of things where each core element of the set may or may not actually be a truth. To gain better understanding and clarity, such a set should be broken down to core elements.

For those things that cannot be further broken down, either we lack understanding or said things belong to the set of beliefs and is therefore a matter of faith.

The set of known truths must be true as a whole.

Beliefs are those things we may choose to accept as true, but cannot be linked to known truths as defined above. This is the difference between science and theology, for example.

Beliefs are not the same for all people, places and times.

Beliefs, like truths, must adhere to the same rules of reasoning, if they are to be defensible and valid on their own merits.

Putting these core elements together, the following is reasonable:

Accepting something as being true is a heavy burden. Declaring something to be true should be done with care. Knowing the difference between truth and a belief, no matter how compelling, is an essential component to a solid argument.

Up next: Why Labels are bad.