In a debate arguments pass from one pole to the other and counter arguments are sent back in the other direction. The debate does not exist if the receiver of the arguments remains impervious to them, if the transmitter has an inaudible voice, or if the space within which it takes place does not allow for any exchange.

This is exactly what happens in an electric battery. There must be an anode and a cathode (transmitter and receiver), positive and negative ions (arguments and counter-arguments), as well as an electrolyte within which these ions migrate from one electrode to the other (the medium). Sometimes a membrane is placed between the electrodes to make a selection of the ions that may pass on the other side, a sort of debate moderator.

A battery works by cycles of charge and discharge, and each time some energy is distracted, lost as heat. To load it a voltage greater than the equilibrium must be applied between the poles, otherwise nothing happens. To discharge it, an external circuit must be connected to consume the energy that was accumulated. The internal resistance of the battery limits the maximum speed of charge and discharge.

If the electrodes get corroded or become covered with an insulating layer, if the electrolyte loses its properties, e.g. in being polluted by depolarizing elements, or if a short circuit is established between the electrodes then the battery will not function: it may still contain all its constituents but it has lost its reason d’être.

In analogy with the battery cycles a debate is taking place by the alternation of phases. There is first the accumulation of facts and the preparation of opinions and arguments to explain them. This requires research and analysis, in other words: time and energy. Then comes the phase of the exhaustion of the arguments in a dialogue between the opposing parties: all the arguments are put on the table until the differences are resolved and tensions are allayed. This is repeated many times since it is known that one sole experiment does not make science.

Ideally perfect, such a process should lead to the end of History, to a definitive general and global understanding. But this utopia does not happen because, as in the physical reality of electric batteries, imperfections are sufficiently numerous and systemic to prevent it.

To begin with, fuel must be added to the debate and not everyone is willing to provide this energy, or if any then in a quantity that will remains insufficient to carry it through to the end, or just enough to create the illusion that a debate took place.

Those who find a debate tiring, useless or even dangerous will depolarize the tension, suggest a few banalities or bring elements foreign to the debate to flatten the battery. Agreement will be reached on a misunderstanding because confusion is preferred to honest confrontation. Postponement, or even a form of brain death will result.

Too often – actually almost always – each party is preformatted by its culture and its allegiance to the tribe in which it lives. As an electrode being covering by an insulating layer, sectarians remain impervious to any arguments issued by any opposite party, even by a moderator. No current flows and the tension builds up to the point where one of the parties will waive. In a democracy a vote may be held to sanction and to close the debate, even though nothing substantial or very little has been resolved; thus everyone camps on its positions and accepts only temporarily a decision that is contrary to its preferences. Another outcome may be that a sudden discharge takes place accompanied with by a more or less violent explosion; this is war and destruction. Here arises the danger of polarizing to the extreme.

And finally there are lazy people who have not prepared their case, did not take into account the situation of their opponents, and whose arguments are without substance even before the dispute can become a fruitful one. They are like the lost electrode which disintegrates when used. Then the temptation is great to hide one’s weaknesses by a posture of intransigence: no more arguments are emitted but reference to irrefutable principles will be made. Or to not lose the little stuff that may still remain the transmitter ceases to communicate, current doesn’t flow anymore and, in this case also, the tension mounts until the cessation of one of the parties, or a final clash.

Electrochemical technology is changing only slowly. The possible combinations of components are not that numerous, modest progress is made in small increments on electrode materials, electrolytes, and membranes. And for an electrochemical systems to properly work, everything must be very pure and very clean.

The culture of public debate (or the lack of it) is over thirty centuries-old. Unfortunately it does not make much progress and remains exposed to similar challenges as the much younger electrochemistry.

Merci de partager et de diffuser cet article !