4 ms·
I understand what's meant by this statement, and I agree with the intentions, but it oversimplifies matters. It's not necessarily true that the next-least-conv
by amalcon 17y ago
I understand what's meant by this statement, and I agree with the intentions, but it oversimplifies matters. It's not necessarily true that the next-least-convenient path is invalid.
For example, suppose I want to argue against the statement that we have been visited by poorly-hidden aliens. I could go find all the compelling arguments that we have been so visited, and refute them. Alternatively, I could examine all possible poor hiding places, and demonstrate that there are no aliens in these places. I can refute the arguments, or I can disprove the conclusion.
Both of these approaches are valid. One is necessarily more convenient than the other, and thus is not the most convenient.
The larger point (that refuting a poor argument is meaningless) still stands on its own, and that should be a law in political discourse.
- chasingsparks 17y agoAgreed.
- roc 17y agoThe point is that you should argue against the best theory advanced by the strongest proponent of the poorly-hidden alien crowd. How you argue against that point doesn't really matter, so long as you're being intellectually honest. (no ad hominem, straw men, etc) What the article is arguing against, is the method of dismissing the poorly-hidden alien theory, because some crackpot who advances it believes that aliens live in his bathroom drain. One cannot simply inspect this one drain, find no evidence of extraterrestrial life and then dismiss the entire poorly-hidden alien theory.
- amalcon 17y agoMy point is that you don't necessarily need to argue against a particular theory at all. The entire rest of the post is pretty good; it's just that one particular part can be misleading if taken in isolation.