I'm grown to detest a broad range of arguments that instead of either arguing for their opinion or against the other opinion, simply attempt to devalue the entire discussion while somehow arguing that the argument being less important somehow means there stance on it is more valid.
Now to be clear I'm not talking about the separate argument as to the value of the discussion. Saying the topic isn't meaningful is an entire different kettle of fish. What I'm talking about are the arguments that basically boil down to "The argument isn't important... therefore somehow I win."
The Ur example of this is of course my old arch nemesis Solipsism*. I've always said that as soon as the phrase "But you don't know for sure!" gets thrown out you are dealing with someone who doesn't have high intellectual standards. Rational people of course accept that all statements have a degree of doubt but don't wave it around discussions to invalidate people actually trying to figure things out.
My biggest issue with this is how counter-logical it is.
Bob: I hold (insert thinly supported Opinion Y here)
Ted: I feel there isn't enough evidence to support Opinion Y. I feel (more heavily supported Opinion X) to be true.
Bob: But you can't know for sure!!!!
Since Ted's opinion is better supported the Bob's Bob's attempt to introduce ambiguity to the discussion, while perhaps valid on a conceptual level, by definition introduces more doubt to his opinion then to Ted's but Bob's obviously attempting to support his position by introducing vagueness to the overall discussion, which makes zero sense yet we see this all the time.
Or here's another version; the "I don't see what the big deal is" argument. This one is more moral or social then intellectual, but sorta follows the same base concept.
Bob: Ted I need you to do X for me.
Ted: Sorry Bob, I don't have time to do X for you right now.
Bob: Oh Jeez Bob... it's just a few minutes of your time... I don't see what the big deal is.
See what I mean? Again by definition Bob wanting Ted to do something for him and Ted not wanting to do it are pretty much equal, but Bob is trying to devalue Ted's not wanting to do it in order to get his way. It makes no sense.
If you lower the
*As always I'm not talking real, philosophical level solipsism, but it's sadder street level cousin of countering any skeptical standards with appeals to some inherently unknowable quality of the universe.
Now to be clear I'm not talking about the separate argument as to the value of the discussion. Saying the topic isn't meaningful is an entire different kettle of fish. What I'm talking about are the arguments that basically boil down to "The argument isn't important... therefore somehow I win."
The Ur example of this is of course my old arch nemesis Solipsism*. I've always said that as soon as the phrase "But you don't know for sure!" gets thrown out you are dealing with someone who doesn't have high intellectual standards. Rational people of course accept that all statements have a degree of doubt but don't wave it around discussions to invalidate people actually trying to figure things out.
My biggest issue with this is how counter-logical it is.
Bob: I hold (insert thinly supported Opinion Y here)
Ted: I feel there isn't enough evidence to support Opinion Y. I feel (more heavily supported Opinion X) to be true.
Bob: But you can't know for sure!!!!
Since Ted's opinion is better supported the Bob's Bob's attempt to introduce ambiguity to the discussion, while perhaps valid on a conceptual level, by definition introduces more doubt to his opinion then to Ted's but Bob's obviously attempting to support his position by introducing vagueness to the overall discussion, which makes zero sense yet we see this all the time.
Or here's another version; the "I don't see what the big deal is" argument. This one is more moral or social then intellectual, but sorta follows the same base concept.
Bob: Ted I need you to do X for me.
Ted: Sorry Bob, I don't have time to do X for you right now.
Bob: Oh Jeez Bob... it's just a few minutes of your time... I don't see what the big deal is.
See what I mean? Again by definition Bob wanting Ted to do something for him and Ted not wanting to do it are pretty much equal, but Bob is trying to devalue Ted's not wanting to do it in order to get his way. It makes no sense.
If you lower the
*As always I'm not talking real, philosophical level solipsism, but it's sadder street level cousin of countering any skeptical standards with appeals to some inherently unknowable quality of the universe.
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1dp14Ht
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire