3 ms·

> it allows the reader to insert their individual grievances into the shape of the argument rather than reflecting on whether their grievances are actually well

> it allows the reader to insert their individual grievances into the shape of the argument rather than reflecting on whether their grievances are actually well-founded. Given that it's specifically about the shape of these sorts of arguments, adding specific examples would produce tangents into the merits of the specific examples; omitting them encourages the reader to consider the pattern in the context of their own experience (as you say), but by removing the actual "grievance", this technique reduces emotion, and gives us more opportunity to consider the pattern dispassionately. This would actually be more "emotive" if it forced us to confront examples which we might violently agree or disagree with. Providing specific instances of the pattern would only be necessary if the pattern itself has few enough examples that the typical reader hasn't encountered any. Given that Graham's entire point appears to be that this pattern is increasingly pervasive, by providing examples, he would undermine his own conclusions.

woodruffw 5y ago
"The shape of an argument" is the polite way to say that an argument is imprecise. Less politely: it's a way to beat around the bush about what you actually believe while maintaining plausible agreeability. Graham can't make the point that it's pervasive, because he won't provide any evidence to that effect. He won't do that because he knows that hand-wringing about "heresy" is much more agreeable than the interior position: that rich and powerful men like himself shouldn't be made to bear uncomfortable thoughts.
- stale2002 5y ago
  > Graham can't make the point that it's pervasive, because he won't provide any evidence to that effect Yes he can. The reader can use their brain and think of examples themselves.
- randallsquared 5y ago
  If someone extracts a pattern that, say, three arguments follow, which we can then call the "shape" of this kind of argument, which of the three arguments are you suggesting is imprecise? Or is your position that any actual argument which fits into any pattern at all is somehow imprecise? It's clear that we are miscommunicating regarding the meta vs object level of this essay, but I'm not sure exactly where the disconnect lies.
galaxyLogic 5y ago
> Given that Graham's entire point appears to be that this pattern is increasingly pervasive, by providing examples, he would undermine his own conclusions. If Graham wants to argue that "this pattern is increasingly pervasive" wouldn't it help to provide examples of how fast it is becoming more pervasive? He could do this with examples. If he's claiming it is becoming more pervasive I think he failed to present any evidence for that.

woodruffw 5y ago

"The shape of an argument" is the polite way to say that an argument is imprecise. Less politely: it's a way to beat around the bush about what you actually believe while maintaining plausible agreeability. Graham can't make the point that it's pervasive, because he won't provide any evidence to that effect. He won't do that because he knows that hand-wringing about "heresy" is much more agreeable than the interior position: that rich and powerful men like himself shouldn't be made to bear uncomfortable thoughts.

stale2002 5y ago
> Graham can't make the point that it's pervasive, because he won't provide any evidence to that effect Yes he can. The reader can use their brain and think of examples themselves.
randallsquared 5y ago
If someone extracts a pattern that, say, three arguments follow, which we can then call the "shape" of this kind of argument, which of the three arguments are you suggesting is imprecise? Or is your position that any actual argument which fits into any pattern at all is somehow imprecise? It's clear that we are miscommunicating regarding the meta vs object level of this essay, but I'm not sure exactly where the disconnect lies.

galaxyLogic 5y ago

> Given that Graham's entire point appears to be that this pattern is increasingly pervasive, by providing examples, he would undermine his own conclusions. If Graham wants to argue that "this pattern is increasingly pervasive" wouldn't it help to provide examples of how fast it is becoming more pervasive? He could do this with examples. If he's claiming it is becoming more pervasive I think he failed to present any evidence for that.