3 ms·

Counter-argument, written without informing the author: the risk of arguing without talking to the thesisholder is that you don't work with the iron man version

by kqr 5y ago

Counter-argument, written without informing the author: the risk of arguing without talking to the thesisholder is that you don't work with the iron man version of the thesis. And straw man debate is a type of intellectual bullshit we have too much of already. (So why am I engaging in this type of intellectual bullshit by writing this comment? Sometimes when I'm very tired and don't have energy to do more useful things like read a book I get a little kick out of trying to state arguments concisely and get little tokens of appreciation in the form of upvotes from fellow hackers. These tokens are less likely in a drawn-out argument, even if it becomes intellectually more honest. So... I blame the system!)

civilized 5y ago
> Counter-argument, written without informing the author: the risk of arguing without talking to the thesisholder is that you don't work with the iron man version of the thesis. Or, you criticize the thesis as honestly as you can with the information the author provided, the author responds with their steel man version, and you publicly go back and forth until clarity is achieved. A public cycle of criticism based on a good-faith misunderstanding is itself useful, as it puts on display the disconnect between what an author thinks they are saying and what their words actually communicate to the public.
- titzer 5y ago
  > A public cycle of criticism Sure. But conversations take time, and always require shared background understanding. A some point, you can't let every conversation devolve into rebuilding the foundations of mathematics from axioms. Authors have a responsibility to explain their ideas to a reader with a "reasonable" background of shared knowledge. If a long dialog ensues that reveals that reasonable shared background is neither reasonable nor shared, then great. But if the dialog devolves into a back-and-forth with obstinate readers who both refuse to enter into shared background understanding (e.g. not putting in any work, by not doing suggested background research or flat out disagreeing on basic premises like matter is made of atoms, etc) and simultaneously have really strong opinions, then everything gets derailed. So critics do have some responsibility to know what they are talking about as well.
  - civilized 5y ago
    This is true whether or not the conversation is public, so somewhat orthogonal to the topic at hand.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
hirundo 5y ago
I made a comment here about a book the other day and the author responded. I found that I was more fair, thoughtful and neutral when I replied to him than when I made the original comment. This isn't always the case but I think that personal interaction with the creator tends to make criticism more measured and humane.

by kqr 5y ago

civilized 5y ago

> Counter-argument, written without informing the author: the risk of arguing without talking to the thesisholder is that you don't work with the iron man version of the thesis. Or, you criticize the thesis as honestly as you can with the information the author provided, the author responds with their steel man version, and you publicly go back and forth until clarity is achieved. A public cycle of criticism based on a good-faith misunderstanding is itself useful, as it puts on display the disconnect between what an author thinks they are saying and what their words actually communicate to the public.

titzer 5y ago
> A public cycle of criticism Sure. But conversations take time, and always require shared background understanding. A some point, you can't let every conversation devolve into rebuilding the foundations of mathematics from axioms. Authors have a responsibility to explain their ideas to a reader with a "reasonable" background of shared knowledge. If a long dialog ensues that reveals that reasonable shared background is neither reasonable nor shared, then great. But if the dialog devolves into a back-and-forth with obstinate readers who both refuse to enter into shared background understanding (e.g. not putting in any work, by not doing suggested background research or flat out disagreeing on basic premises like matter is made of atoms, etc) and simultaneously have really strong opinions, then everything gets derailed. So critics do have some responsibility to know what they are talking about as well.
- civilized 5y ago
  This is true whether or not the conversation is public, so somewhat orthogonal to the topic at hand.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

hirundo 5y ago

I made a comment here about a book the other day and the author responded. I found that I was more fair, thoughtful and neutral when I replied to him than when I made the original comment. This isn't always the case but I think that personal interaction with the creator tends to make criticism more measured and humane.