3 ms·

How exactly are you supposed to make the argument that somebody else's argument is valid without explaining that argument? What you're asking for here is a bas

How exactly are you supposed to make the argument that somebody else's argument is valid without explaining that argument? What you're asking for here is a basically a Tweet: “I mean, maybe they're not wrong.”

wk_end 6y ago
Is it really "someone else's argument" though? If you change the framing a little bit there's no reason this article couldn't have been titled "We Should Start to Think About Ending the Shutdown" or something. But if it had been titled that, most people who don't already agree would just write it off immediately. It's clear the framing was chosen to appear more reasonable and neutral in order to target those a little more open-minded or on the fence, to sneak past the out-grouping that leads people to dismiss the other side instinctively. That's not even really a criticism, given how polarized and partisan political discourse is; it's smart rhetoric. So to answer your question directly: you can explain the argument without uncritically recapitulating it. The latter is what this essay does, which is why I think the idea that it's "someone else's argument" is a front. For comparison, this [1] article showed up here a while ago. The authors repeatedly made clear that they disagreed with the skeptics, that they had "consensus views", that they weren't trying to Trojan horse a contrarian argument in under the guise of a call for open-mindedness and debate. That essay has flaws, and maybe it's naive, but I got the genuine sense when reading it that the authors were being forthright and earnest. I think they succeeded at making the case for the validity and worthwhileness of someone else's argument without looking like they're endorsing it. [1] https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/27/hear-scientists-different-views-covid-19-dont-attack-them/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/27/hear-scientists-differen...

wk_end 6y ago

Is it really "someone else's argument" though? If you change the framing a little bit there's no reason this article couldn't have been titled "We Should Start to Think About Ending the Shutdown" or something. But if it had been titled that, most people who don't already agree would just write it off immediately. It's clear the framing was chosen to appear more reasonable and neutral in order to target those a little more open-minded or on the fence, to sneak past the out-grouping that leads people to dismiss the other side instinctively. That's not even really a criticism, given how polarized and partisan political discourse is; it's smart rhetoric. So to answer your question directly: you can explain the argument without uncritically recapitulating it. The latter is what this essay does, which is why I think the idea that it's "someone else's argument" is a front. For comparison, this [1] article showed up here a while ago. The authors repeatedly made clear that they disagreed with the skeptics, that they had "consensus views", that they weren't trying to Trojan horse a contrarian argument in under the guise of a call for open-mindedness and debate. That essay has flaws, and maybe it's naive, but I got the genuine sense when reading it that the authors were being forthright and earnest. I think they succeeded at making the case for the validity and worthwhileness of someone else's argument without looking like they're endorsing it. [1] https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/27/hear-scientists-different-views-covid-19-dont-attack-them/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/27/hear-scientists-differen...