5 ms·

I'd just like to clarify - you are saying their inability to produce a counterpoint is irrelevant to their argument because there might exist a possible counter

I'd just like to clarify - you are saying their inability to produce a counterpoint is irrelevant to their argument because there might exist a possible counterpoint not yet articulated that validates their argument?

vinay427 6y ago
Essentially, yes. In other words, I wouldn't endorse their line of argument or discussion, but I also wouldn't use it to dismiss the point being argued.
- strangeattractr 6y ago
  How would you dismiss points being argued if not on the ability of their proponents to argue them?
  - cool_dude85 6y ago
    On their merits? Participants in a debate are not avatars of their side of the argument. One guy fails to make a counterpoint, ok. Doesn't mean he's wrong.
    - strangeattractr 6y ago
      How do you evaluate the merits of an argument?
      - cool_dude85 6y ago
        Critical thinking, reasoning skills, historical and subject knowledge. I'm sure you could think of more techniques if you put your mind to it.
        strangeattractr 6y ago
        No those are just tools, you evaluate an argument based on the chain of reasoning from premise to conclusion. Critical thinking is how you produce an apparent contradiction in an argument. Once you put this to the person articulating an argument, given all arguments are articulated by people, and they cannot provide a counterpoint to make the chain of reasoning logically sound. You have to reject that argument or else there is no point in arguing - there are no grounds to reject an argument. That it is possible there exists a potential argument that links the premise to the same conclusion doesn't save the particular argument presented. Being right for the wrong reasons is still being wrong.
cool_dude85 6y ago
What one party may characterize as an "inability to produce a counterpoint", another party may characterize as "unwilling to waste time arguing with some moron who doesn't understand the self-evident point". There are 100 other possible explanations, but I think anyone can agree that not replying to every "counterargument" in a social setting doesn't mean that someone is wrong.
ihumanable 6y ago
There's that quote of disputed origin that goes "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The author of this article would like the reader to draw the conclusion that the Adams camp responded with "aggressive viciousness precisely because they cannot withstand scrutiny." The author could be right, could be wrong, responding with "aggressive viciousness" doesn't really tell you anything about how well someone could support their position, it really only tells you that the person didn't and instead resorted to "aggressive viciousness." Now we could infer that if you have good reasons for your positions you need not resort to "aggressive viciousness" and could instead use less aggressive non-vicious reasoning to support your position. Is that inference valid? I don't know, I don't particularly have a dog in the fight. If I call your mom an idiot and you say you'll knock my block off for doing so, I could rightly say you responded with "aggressive viciousness." That doesn't really bolster my claim that your mom is an idiot nor does it imply that you could not support with evidence the case that your mom is not an idiot. The analogy here falls a bit flat because something like "your mom is an idiot" is rather inflammatory and so a strong visceral reaction makes sense in that context, where in the drawn out academic setting that is referenced in the post there would be ample time to make a calm reasoned case. So should you draw the inference the author wants? That the actions outlined are "aggressive viciousness" and that they are that way because the "firmaments [...] cannot withstand scrutiny." That's up to you. Does it follow from a purely logical set of reasoning, not really, which to the author's credit they readily admit by labeling this section "Now for conjecture:"
cortesoft 6y ago
I think they are talking about sea-lioning (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning) Requiring someone to always respond fully to any challenge with evidence, no matter how many times the same points are made or how irrelevant the dispute is to the substance of the issue, is unreasonable.
- prepend 6y ago
  It’s unreasonable to present things as fact without evidence. The difference between sealioning and people citing no evidence or poor evidence is important. If I’m presenting evidence based material, I’d rather err on the side of too much discussion about quality of evidence than firing or expelling the single person who asked questions of my evidence.

vinay427 6y ago

Essentially, yes. In other words, I wouldn't endorse their line of argument or discussion, but I also wouldn't use it to dismiss the point being argued.

strangeattractr 6y ago
How would you dismiss points being argued if not on the ability of their proponents to argue them?
- cool_dude85 6y ago
  On their merits? Participants in a debate are not avatars of their side of the argument. One guy fails to make a counterpoint, ok. Doesn't mean he's wrong.
  - strangeattractr 6y ago
    How do you evaluate the merits of an argument?
    - cool_dude85 6y ago
      Critical thinking, reasoning skills, historical and subject knowledge. I'm sure you could think of more techniques if you put your mind to it.
      - strangeattractr 6y ago
        No those are just tools, you evaluate an argument based on the chain of reasoning from premise to conclusion. Critical thinking is how you produce an apparent contradiction in an argument. Once you put this to the person articulating an argument, given all arguments are articulated by people, and they cannot provide a counterpoint to make the chain of reasoning logically sound. You have to reject that argument or else there is no point in arguing - there are no grounds to reject an argument. That it is possible there exists a potential argument that links the premise to the same conclusion doesn't save the particular argument presented. Being right for the wrong reasons is still being wrong.

cool_dude85 6y ago

What one party may characterize as an "inability to produce a counterpoint", another party may characterize as "unwilling to waste time arguing with some moron who doesn't understand the self-evident point". There are 100 other possible explanations, but I think anyone can agree that not replying to every "counterargument" in a social setting doesn't mean that someone is wrong.

ihumanable 6y ago

There's that quote of disputed origin that goes "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The author of this article would like the reader to draw the conclusion that the Adams camp responded with "aggressive viciousness precisely because they cannot withstand scrutiny." The author could be right, could be wrong, responding with "aggressive viciousness" doesn't really tell you anything about how well someone could support their position, it really only tells you that the person didn't and instead resorted to "aggressive viciousness." Now we could infer that if you have good reasons for your positions you need not resort to "aggressive viciousness" and could instead use less aggressive non-vicious reasoning to support your position. Is that inference valid? I don't know, I don't particularly have a dog in the fight. If I call your mom an idiot and you say you'll knock my block off for doing so, I could rightly say you responded with "aggressive viciousness." That doesn't really bolster my claim that your mom is an idiot nor does it imply that you could not support with evidence the case that your mom is not an idiot. The analogy here falls a bit flat because something like "your mom is an idiot" is rather inflammatory and so a strong visceral reaction makes sense in that context, where in the drawn out academic setting that is referenced in the post there would be ample time to make a calm reasoned case. So should you draw the inference the author wants? That the actions outlined are "aggressive viciousness" and that they are that way because the "firmaments [...] cannot withstand scrutiny." That's up to you. Does it follow from a purely logical set of reasoning, not really, which to the author's credit they readily admit by labeling this section "Now for conjecture:"

cortesoft 6y ago

I think they are talking about sea-lioning (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning) Requiring someone to always respond fully to any challenge with evidence, no matter how many times the same points are made or how irrelevant the dispute is to the substance of the issue, is unreasonable.

prepend 6y ago
It’s unreasonable to present things as fact without evidence. The difference between sealioning and people citing no evidence or poor evidence is important. If I’m presenting evidence based material, I’d rather err on the side of too much discussion about quality of evidence than firing or expelling the single person who asked questions of my evidence.