5 ms·

I was taught early: attack the problem, not the person. One of the weakest tools in the persuasive argument toolbox is going after the credibility of the oppos

I was taught early: attack the problem, not the person. One of the weakest tools in the persuasive argument toolbox is going after the credibility of the opposition.

jdw64 6mo ago
What matters is that the writer of this article is also intelligent enough to present perspectives that I myself had not considered. But perhaps he felt disappointment at seeing a flawed side of someone he once regarded as a hero, and that disappointment turned into aggressive criticism. I also felt uncomfortable with this article partly because I once liked Dawkins myself. So perhaps my response was also a kind of defense born from fandom. That is not a purely rational response. It is an emotional one. In the end, not everything in the world can be reduced to understanding.
- Waterluvian 6mo ago
  I think about the role passion plays in science when thinking about emotional vs. rational responses. I think passion is what fuels those emotional responses. To be dispassionate, one is ready to throw away their heroes and hypotheses with ease. Which is logical and what we’re taught: let new information change your models. But even if it causes us to drag our heels and feel deep emotion when something we wanted to be exciting and true was just invalidated, it drives our impulse to dig deep and not give up or skip over a potential discovery. I think Vulcans from Star Trek are what you get when your science lacks passion. Thorough, consistent, systematic. Subtly mocking the lesser humans for their impulse to explore that perfectly mundane star system. I think where my mind is wandering with this is that some of our emotional responses act as a sort of cultural friction. We should be able to give up on Dawkins if the facts call for that. But it’s probably valuable for us to be stubborn about giving up on things we believe in.
spankibalt 6mo ago
> "I was taught early: attack the problem, not the person. One of the weakest tools in the [...] toolbox is going after the credibility of the opposition." I was taught early: Examine and, if necessary, attack both, for the credibility of a person (their track record, their motivations, etc.) are, or at least might be, a part of the problem.
- potsandpans 6mo ago
  Then you were taught to argue incorrectly.
  - sublinear 6mo ago
    In truth, there is no "correct way" to argue. What convinces people says more about the audience. For many audiences, it isn't even about reason. That's especially true online where it's just power struggles between incoherent groups. In the specific case of atheists, they are arguing about something non-falsifiable. Those topics are natural cesspools for grifters and charlatans. It's one thing to study the topic, but quite another to give fiery speeches and sell books to people desperate to find their identity somewhere in that slop.
    - potsandpans 6mo ago
      There is of course nuance as with everything. Potentially arguing in bad faith myself, I don't consider discussing non-falsifiable claims, giving fiery speeches to sell books and engaging in the general cesspool of internet mud slinging to be "argumentation." If we're considering dunk-style quips and counter attack as arguments, then sure, we can step into this highly relative middle ground you've proposed. But those are fights and grandstanding. A (productive) argument is about arriving at truth through discourse, the other stuff is largely vitriol or unproductive. It's unfortunate that we have the same word to apply to two different concepts. The OP said, "I was taught early: Examine and, if necessary, attack both, for the credibility of a person..." "Attack the person" is not a productive / valid way to approach a counter argument. It's even got a fallacy associated with it. If Bibi says, "All people deserve the right to defend themselves." It's not a useful or appropriate response to respond with, "You have zero credibility as the leader of an apartheid state so anything you say is meaningless." It may be true that a person offers arguments in bad faith, but also, the concept introduced by this person can be true in themselves. It's more difficult to unpack, analyze and develop more sharp and compelling arguments against. It's a lot easier to say, "shut up, bitch." Both have a place in culture and society, but to say something like, "I was taught to attack the person" with reference to argumentation and then to defend it with, "well... there's no right way it's whoever is listening" is somewhat disingenuous.

I was taught early: attack the problem, not the person. One of the weakest tools in the persuasive argument toolbox is going after the credibility of the opposition.

jdw64 6mo ago

What matters is that the writer of this article is also intelligent enough to present perspectives that I myself had not considered. But perhaps he felt disappointment at seeing a flawed side of someone he once regarded as a hero, and that disappointment turned into aggressive criticism. I also felt uncomfortable with this article partly because I once liked Dawkins myself. So perhaps my response was also a kind of defense born from fandom. That is not a purely rational response. It is an emotional one. In the end, not everything in the world can be reduced to understanding.

Waterluvian 6mo ago
I think about the role passion plays in science when thinking about emotional vs. rational responses. I think passion is what fuels those emotional responses. To be dispassionate, one is ready to throw away their heroes and hypotheses with ease. Which is logical and what we’re taught: let new information change your models. But even if it causes us to drag our heels and feel deep emotion when something we wanted to be exciting and true was just invalidated, it drives our impulse to dig deep and not give up or skip over a potential discovery. I think Vulcans from Star Trek are what you get when your science lacks passion. Thorough, consistent, systematic. Subtly mocking the lesser humans for their impulse to explore that perfectly mundane star system. I think where my mind is wandering with this is that some of our emotional responses act as a sort of cultural friction. We should be able to give up on Dawkins if the facts call for that. But it’s probably valuable for us to be stubborn about giving up on things we believe in.

spankibalt 6mo ago

> "I was taught early: attack the problem, not the person. One of the weakest tools in the [...] toolbox is going after the credibility of the opposition." I was taught early: Examine and, if necessary, attack both, for the credibility of a person (their track record, their motivations, etc.) are, or at least might be, a part of the problem.

potsandpans 6mo ago
Then you were taught to argue incorrectly.
- sublinear 6mo ago
  In truth, there is no "correct way" to argue. What convinces people says more about the audience. For many audiences, it isn't even about reason. That's especially true online where it's just power struggles between incoherent groups. In the specific case of atheists, they are arguing about something non-falsifiable. Those topics are natural cesspools for grifters and charlatans. It's one thing to study the topic, but quite another to give fiery speeches and sell books to people desperate to find their identity somewhere in that slop.
  - potsandpans 6mo ago
    There is of course nuance as with everything. Potentially arguing in bad faith myself, I don't consider discussing non-falsifiable claims, giving fiery speeches to sell books and engaging in the general cesspool of internet mud slinging to be "argumentation." If we're considering dunk-style quips and counter attack as arguments, then sure, we can step into this highly relative middle ground you've proposed. But those are fights and grandstanding. A (productive) argument is about arriving at truth through discourse, the other stuff is largely vitriol or unproductive. It's unfortunate that we have the same word to apply to two different concepts. The OP said, "I was taught early: Examine and, if necessary, attack both, for the credibility of a person..." "Attack the person" is not a productive / valid way to approach a counter argument. It's even got a fallacy associated with it. If Bibi says, "All people deserve the right to defend themselves." It's not a useful or appropriate response to respond with, "You have zero credibility as the leader of an apartheid state so anything you say is meaningless." It may be true that a person offers arguments in bad faith, but also, the concept introduced by this person can be true in themselves. It's more difficult to unpack, analyze and develop more sharp and compelling arguments against. It's a lot easier to say, "shut up, bitch." Both have a place in culture and society, but to say something like, "I was taught to attack the person" with reference to argumentation and then to defend it with, "well... there's no right way it's whoever is listening" is somewhat disingenuous.