〈가〉 Playing the devil’s advocate is a technique closely related to that which is used to test a hypothesis.
The term “devil’s advocacy,” and its practice as a technique of argument is believed to have origins within the Roman Catholic Church.
It was devised as a means of critically examining a deceased person’s qual- ifications for the bestowment of sainthood.
Since the church scholars wanted to conduct the most rigorous examination when canonizing, they took the devil’s position in order to challenge the main points presented in a nomination for sainthood.
In their view, the idea was that through this process the truth of the deceased’s eligibility would rise to the top.
〈나〉 It is very common now to hear people say something like “let me be the devil’s advocate” when they question a proposition in relation to nearly any matter.
This does not mean that they strictly disbelieve in the proposition; they only wish to challenge it in order to test its validity.
When a person chooses to play the devil’s advocate they are seeking to prove the opposite of whatever the proposition states, with either the same evidence or a completely different set of facts or theories.
〈다〉 When using devil’s advocacy as an argument technique, the power of the technique is due to people’s strong tendency to focus.
This tendency to focus often makes them favor a particular outcome or solution before they have analyzed the situation.
In fact, people often favor a particular outcome or solution from the very start.
This is long before they have taken the time to analyze evidence with objectivity before reaching a conclusion.
When making an argument, devil’s advocacy is analytically useful since by design it places focus on a contrary viewpoint.
By doing this, it naturally activates all instinctive behaviors associated with the process of focusing.
〈라〉These instinctive behaviors include, but are not limited to, viewing a problem one-dimensionally with bias concerning a viewpoint, coming up with alternative solutions, estimating the value of the evidence supporting the viewpoint and lowering the value, and ultimately discarding evidence that does not support the viewpoint.
By causing the mind to utilize its instinctive behaviors to focus, it is engaging the very same mental tactics being used by the supporters of the viewpoint, but in an opposing fashion.
Devil’s advocacy, however, takes things a step further by actively seeking out, gathering, and accumulating new evidence, though some of the evidence could be off-base or loosely connected.
This combination of supporting and opposing views actually works to promote objectivity when the two sides are combined.