Interesting Exchange on Positive Liberty

Excellent, Ed.

Very nice point by point refutation. It's amazing he lasted as long as he did. He was came and left with his blinders set on kill.

The funniest (worst) part was the complete lack of any understanding or want of discussion on his part about the actual (lack of)"science" of ID and how teaching bad science is well.... bad....not a choice that affirms someones beliefs.

Ed got me all right. Never tried to defend ID as science as you stated, but got me nevertheless.

(This comment is also cross-posted over at Positive Liberty.)

Like most people who throw around the term ad hominem casually, you clearly don't know what it actually means. I have not made any ad hominem arguments. An ad hominem is a logical fallacy that argues against the truth of a proposition by pointing to an irrelevant personal characteristic of the person making the argument. I've done no such thing. Laughing derisively at the stupidity of the argument you made - and make no mistake, it was astonishingly stupid - is not an ad hominem.

I always thought abuse was a form of argument ad hominem.

A common way to attack an opponent, while appearing to attack the argument, is to attribute personal qualities to the argument, as in "That's a stupid argument!" Since arguments are not persons, they cannot literally be stupid (or intelligent). Saying "That's a stupid argument," really means, "Only a stupid person would offer such an argument," so this really is an Ad Hominem - Abusive, even though it appears to be directed at the argument rather than at the person.

No, that link is simply wrong. It all I had said was "geez, what a stupid argument", then perhaps. But I also explained why it was a stupid argument. An ad hominem is a logical fallacy, an argument that doesn't lead logically to the conclusion ("He must be wrong about the war in Iraq, I mean look at how he dresses"). Explaining why an argument is stupid and calling it stupid is a conclusion. And as long as the argument for why it's stupid is valid - and it was - then it's not an ad hominem.

But I also explained why it was a stupid argument.

I think maybe you explained why it was a faulty argument. But hey, no biggie. Cheers!

P.S., more Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron fun here. This time on atheism. Apparently Mr. Cameron used to be a "devout atheist," - which really doesn't surprise me too much, I guess. Oops, logical fallacy! Sorry.

You were entirely too hard on him. He definitely didn't sound like a creationist intentionally lying; he just sounded like someone without experience in these debates. Ignorance or being wrong shouldn't result in a tongue lashing.

386sx: If you think that's good, check out Shirley Phelps Roper of Westboro Baptist on Hannity and Colmes: Link here.

If Sean Hannity thinks you're off your rocker, you might want to check yourself at the Reality Desk.

Okay, I take it back. Ray Comfort's analysis of the banana's perfect design beats homophobic funeral protesters any day.

386sx | April 22, 2006 11:08 PM

Ed's comment was not an example of an ad hominem argument. There is a difference between (i) arguing by calling someone stupid (which was the example given in your blockquote), and (ii) calling an argument stupid. If one provides evidence and counter-argumentation that an argument is stupid, the additional calling of an argument stupid would be in the nature of summarizing.

Even people who are not stupid can make stupid arguments.

Ed,
Masterful Argumentation. Your patience and thoroughness is much appreciated.

In regards to that ad hominem link: Why couldn't an argument be "stupid"?

It's an adjective. Adjectives describe people, places, nounds, things, ideas...People ascribe "personal qualities" to objects and ideas all the time. Nice flowers, shitty car, pleasant scenery, bad idea. It sounds like the person who wrote that thinks that qualitative assessments of ideas is not possible without implicitly assessing the person arguing them.

That's just stupid =D

good fun. Thanks all.

http://www.purplethink.com/epinion/ID.asp

"stupid is as stupid does"

Forrest Gump quoting his momma

I'm with Matthew. Purple posed his arguments, maintained civility, even AGREED Ed had the superior argument. What more do you want? Methinks Ed perhaps smelt the blood after his public evisceration of Purples' arguments - and that's when it got a bit ugly. And if anybody calls this post STUPID, you've got BAD BREATH!!

He certainly did remain civil, and has continued to be civil in the aftermath. For that, he is probably to be commended. But can we please leave out all of the armchair psycho-analysis? I am a blunt person. When I see a stupid argument, I call it a stupid argument. And the argument that drew my ire was, in fact, breathtakingly stupid. I mean, analogies don't get much worse - "Well what you say might be right or wrong. Hey, here's something else that might be right or wrong, either the Nazis killed the Jews or they didn't. So are you saying that they didn't kill the Jews?" Yes, it really was that stupid. I ridiculed that argument not because, as Purple absurdly hypothesized, I was "threatened personally" by him but because it deserved to be ridiculed. I have no problem with being disagreed with and I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong (and it happens regularly). But I have no patience for idiocy and that was about as pure an example as one could possibly hope for. That doesn't mean he is an idiot; in fact, he seems like a relatively bright guy. But the argument was ridiculous and there's nothing wrong with saying so. It may not be particularly nice, but it's true and that's really all I'm concerned with.

It appears my biggest mistake was that I abandoned my original post. My idiocy was thinking I could win a legal battle on evolution with someone who does it for a living.

My original point was that this whole debate doesn't play in Peoria -- or Dover -- or Kansas. Ed, you have far more allies than you know. I am one, believe it or not. I link to Positive Liberty on my site because I respect your world-view. When you encounter someone who believes ID is unconstitutional, refuses to defend it as science, and concedes you point, instead of berating him, perhaps try and persuade him that its a battle worth fighting.

With all do respect, you still misinterpreted my argument you found stupid. Perhaps I wasn't as eloquent as I could have been. In between mowing the yard, and enjoying a beautiful spring day I neglected to be as meticulous in my word choice as obviously comes easily to you. The issue comes down to potential harm versus governmental role to protect -- but I'll drop it in favor of this conclusion.

Whether or not your personally inflammatory word choice rises to the level of ad hominem is irrelevant. Your nuanced legal wrangling is brilliant but limited in application. The thread in its entirety makes my point that Mr. and Mrs. Middle America see how you and others of your ilk choose to fight this culture war and refuse to mobilize, with you, because of your approach. Not saying that's a smart choice, just that it's true. When chosing between what they know to be intellectually honest and the livelihood of their community, you need to finesse a little more, be less a bull in a china shop, and understand that to many of us -- the issue goes beyond black and white constitutionality.

That is, if you want to win the culture war. If all you want to do is win the court battles keep it up. You have the winning argument to be sure.

Thanks again.

PurpleThink, if all you intended to say was that the public doesn't agree with me even though I'm right, I would have agreed with you 1000%. I'm fully aware of that. Unfortunately, the public is abysmally ignorant when it comes to both evolution and constitutional law. What I don't think we should do, however, is allow the ID movement to take over our science classrooms and make them more ignorant about evolution.

1. A very interesting, eloquent, and educational exchange. Thanks.

2. Ed, PurpleThink's analogy may not have worked, but it wasn't as bad as you made it out to be. You had previously been arguing that teaching ID is harmful to children, so he first questioned whether that is true, and then brought up other things which have been alleged to harm children. If your argument was that things which harm children should be "governed from the federal branch," then his point would have been valid. If harm to children is irrelevant to your argument, then it probably shouldn't have been included. If it's relevant but tangential, then maybe that should have been a bit more clear.

3. Ad hominem or not, words like "nonsense," "idiotic," and "stupid" are fighting words in an exchange like this. They discourage courteous communication, and thereby hinder understanding as well. I don't see any practical point in using them, though occasionally I slip out of sheer moral offense. Avoiding using them sometimes takes a lot of patience, but I don't think that PurpleThink was really saying things that should try the patience a great deal. If the goal of the exchange is to improve understanding, then those "fighting words" should be avoided. If the goal is simply to "win," to find moral satisfaction, or to impress other people, then maybe not. But I personally am repelled by apparently unnecessary vitriol, even (perhaps especially) when it is used by someone "on my side." Debate can be useful for a lot more than pounding someone into the ground.

Ed, perhaps you summarized my argument for me better than I did.

The public is ignorant, true. ID should be kept from the science classroom, true.

Perhaps we differ on approach and perceived harm, but in the end I learned a lot and hope my circuitous approach to a point helped you to understand the position of those that don't live in the legal world.

Thanks Gretchen -- glad someone got it even though I made it difficult to get :)

Gretchen wrote:

Ed, PurpleThink's analogy may not have worked, but it wasn't as bad as you made it out to be. You had previously been arguing that teaching ID is harmful to children, so he first questioned whether that is true, and then brought up other things which have been alleged to harm children. If your argument was that things which harm children should be "governed from the federal branch," then his point would have been valid. If harm to children is irrelevant to your argument, then it probably shouldn't have been included. If it's relevant but tangential, then maybe that should have been a bit more clear.

No, I think you're missing the multiple reasons why the analogy was so ridiculous. You've begun to touch on the first one, which is that I simply didn't say that anything that is harmful to children should be governed from the Federal bench. Whether it's a good or bad idea to teach ID in public schools is a separate question from whether it's constitutional to do so. He asked what I thought would happen, what I "feared", if ID was put into public schools and I explained the reasons why I thought ID should not be taught. In response to other questions, I also explained why it's not constitutional to teach it. So the very first premise was false. But that's just the first level of absurdity.

The second level of absurdity is in the premise that it's valid to make an analogy between two claims that "may or may not be valid", so that if I make an argument that one claim is valid, I must accept as valid any other claim that might be valid. And at that point I gave a really obvious example of why that analogy is so dumb. The argument really was "Okay, what you say might or might not be true. Here's another argument that might or might not be true. Are you saying that's true too?" But of course, all claims might or might not be true.

The third level of absurdity is that, even if I accepted all of those false premises, the conclusion is still invalid - Yes, I think McDonald's is bad for children (and for adults like me too), but no, I don't think it should be outlawed, nor would that in any way be a contradiction. The difference, obviously, is that ID should be outlawed in public school science classrooms not merely because it's harmful to children (that's why legislatures and school boards should keep it out) but because it's unconstitutional (that's why the courts should keep it out).

So the fact is that it was an absolutely horrible analogy and I called it so. I'll also point out that it wasn't the only horrible analogy that was offered up. The analogy between banning ID because it's an inherently religious idea and banning any teaching about Bach because he was Christian, or banning any teaching about medieval Europe because the history involved religion, was equally absurd. These are just bad, bad - and yes, stupid - arguments. Of course it's not "nice" to say it that bluntly, but it's still true.

3. Ad hominem or not, words like "nonsense," "idiotic," and "stupid" are fighting words in an exchange like this. They discourage courteous communication, and thereby hinder understanding as well. I don't see any practical point in using them, though occasionally I slip out of sheer moral offense. Avoiding using them sometimes takes a lot of patience, but I don't think that PurpleThink was really saying things that should try the patience a great deal. If the goal of the exchange is to improve understanding, then those "fighting words" should be avoided. If the goal is simply to "win," to find moral satisfaction, or to impress other people, then maybe not. But I personally am repelled by apparently unnecessary vitriol, even (perhaps especially) when it is used by someone "on my side." Debate can be useful for a lot more than pounding someone into the ground.

I find it really interesting how others think I think about such things. PurpleThink claimed that I must be calling his arguments stupid because I "feel threatened personally" by him. That, to again be blunt, is absurd. You seem to think that the fact that I changed my tone to one that was more derisive means that my goal must not be to improve understanding but to "find moral satisfaction" or to "impress other people". But this is false as well. So rather than have other people tell me why I did it (and do it fairly regularly in such exchanges), perhaps I should just tell you all why so we can put an end to all this armchair psycho-analysis.

Anyone who has read my blogs or known me for any time knows that I really enjoy intelligent debate. I've carried on debates with intelligent, well-informed people, even on issues that I feel very strongly about, for years at a time, without any vitriol or derision entering the conversation at all. I wish all discussions would go that way. So why, then, do I sometimes just cut to the chase and say, "Okay, that's just really stupid"? The answer is really remarkably simple - I just have little patience for stupidity. If someone is offering challenging arguments that make me think and consider my position on a deeper level, I think that's great. When they offer up just plain dumb arguments, it triggers my contempt. Is that partially because of ego? Of course it is, and anyone who claims otherwise is lying. To quote my writing hero, HL Mencken:

There is, indeed, no criticism that is not a confidence, and no confidence that is not self-revelation. When I denounce a book with mocking and contumely, and fall upon the poor author in the brutal, Asiatic manner of a drunken longshoreman, a Ku Kluxer, or a midshipman at Annapolis, I am only saying, in the trade cant, that the fellow disgusts me - that his ideas and his manner are somehow obnoxious to me, as those of a Methodist, a golf player or a clog dancer are obnoxious to me - in brief, that I hold myself to be a great deal better than he is and am eager to say so. And when, on the other hand, I praise a book in high, astounding terms, and speak of the author as if his life and sufferings were of capital importance to the world, then I am merely saying that I detect something in him, of prejudice, tradition, habit of mind, that is much like something in myself, and that my own life and sufferings are of the utmost importance to me. That is all there ever is in criticism, once it gets beyond cataloguing. No matter how artfully a critic may try to be impersonal and scientific, he is bound to give himself away.

The very act of writing out one's opinions for the world to see, whether in a book or on a blog, is an act of egotism. One cannot do it without believing that one's ideas are true and important. Thus, anyone who says that their ego is not involved is lying, probably to themselves as much as to others.

Now, I will admit that getting really blunt and calling a spade a spade in this manner impedes communication. If I was thinking in some strategic manner about the goal of my communication, I would certainly agree that it should be avoided. But I don't think that way and I never have. My goal is never to persuade an opponent unless I think them capable of persuasion, and frankly, I tend to think that anyone capable of offering such terrible and weak arguments to defend their position probably isn't capable of persuasion. There's little point in trying to reason someone out of a position that they weren't reasoned into in the first place. Now, I'm sure that there are times when I misjudge a situation in so doing and for all I know, this might be one of them. But it seems to me that if someone is really capable of thinking through things rationally and having their opinion changed by reasonable argument, they at least ought to be willing to admit when they've made a really dumb argument. So when they compound dumb arguments with more dumb arguments, I simply tend to dismiss them out of hand - and once I have dismissed them out of hand, there is no longer any concern for persuasion. At that point, we might as well just say it like it is.

But more than anything else, I have one primary goal when I write: to be accurate. I take great care to make sure that when I offer an opinion, it is well-reasoned and well thought out and therefore has a high probability of being true. Sometimes I fail at that, of course, as we all do; sometimes I speak too soon and take positions that weren't well thought out, and when someone points out the weaknesses in my reasoning it becomes clear that I was wrong. When I fail at it, I think most who have read me for any length of time would agree, I do not try to cover up that failure with weak and ill-conceived arguments, I just admit to having failed at it and go back to reconsider it again. I think that intellectual honesty demands nothing less. But the point is that accuracy, not niceness, is my primary concern. When I engage in long, detailed and friendly debates on a subject, it's because I respect the other person's knowledge and ability to challenge me; when someone makes stupid arguments, that respect is lost and I just call it like I see it.

For me, it all comes down to whether my statements are true or not. If an argument is really stupid, I don't see anything wrong with saying that it's really stupid. When someone displays ignorance of a subject, I don't see anything wrong with saying that they're ignorant on that subject. I'm sure they don't like to hear it, but it's still true. And in a world where our language has become more and more debased with catchphrases and euphemisms designed to hide the unvarnished truth, I'm sure some people find it as refreshing to read a blunt and accurate statement as I find it to make one.

All of this is probably just a fancy way to say: if anyone expects me to stop flaying someone when they offer up bad arguments based on ignorance or lack of reason, they're probably going to be disappointed. Which means that, on occasion, I'll probably even screw up and point that vitriol at someone who doesn't really deserve it. I've had to apologize a time or two in the past for this, and I'm sure it will happen again despite my efforts to avoid it. PurpleThink seems like a nice guy and I do commend him for maintaining his civility. He also seems to be reasonably bright. But he really did offer some just plain terrible arguments. I make no apology for calling them what they were - really stupid arguments. That's not very nice of me, I know, but accuracy is more important to me than niceness.

Wow!

Ed wrote:

The second level of absurdity is in the premise that it's valid to make an analogy between two claims that "may or may not be valid", so that if I make an argument that one claim is valid, I must accept as valid any other claim that might be valid. And at that point I gave a really obvious example of why that analogy is so dumb. The argument really was "Okay, what you say might or might not be true. Here's another argument that might or might not be true. Are you saying that's true too?" But of course, all claims might or might not be true.

And yet again, you've missed the point. His argument was not that "this thing may or may not be valid, so that thing may or may not be valid" (or at least, not in its totality). That would be the case if the things being compared were totally unrelated, as you alleged elsewhere. But of course they're not totally unrelated. They are all things which have been alleged to be harmful to children. If the argument were all about whether ID is harmful to children or not, then it would be a relevant point. But it's not, so it's not. But again, it's not as bad as you made it out to be.

The third level of absurdity is that, even if I accepted all of those false premises, the conclusion is still invalid - Yes, I think McDonald's is bad for children (and for adults like me too), but no, I don't think it should be outlawed, nor would that in any way be a contradiction.

That's basically just a re-wording of the "first level of absurdity." There really isn't a big difference between saying "being harmful doesn't mean it shouldn't be governed at the federal level" and "being harmful doesn't mean it should be outlawed."

So why, then, do I sometimes just cut to the chase and say, "Okay, that's just really stupid"? The answer is really remarkably simple - I just have little patience for stupidity.

I already identified patience (or lack thereof) as a problem. The problem with saying "I don't have patience for stupidity" is that anybody could say it about anything, or anyone. A creationist could call you all sorts of names and denigrate your arguments all he chose, and then excuse it by saying "I just don't have patience for stupidity, and I'm not apologizing for it." They might well be wrong to call your arguments stupid, but if they are wrong-- indeed, if they're right-- then their time would be a lot better spent actually taking them apart rather than hurling epithets.

All of this is probably just a fancy way to say: if anyone expects me to stop flaying someone when they offer up bad arguments based on ignorance or lack of reason, they're probably going to be disappointed. Which means that, on occasion, I'll probably even screw up and point that vitriol at someone who doesn't really deserve it. I've had to apologize a time or two in the past for this, and I'm sure it will happen again despite my efforts to avoid it.

Well, unlike you perhaps, I am not of the opinion that someone deserves vitriol merely for making a bad argument. Making a bad argument doesn't make a person immoral, or unpleasant, or even ignorant (and by the way, calling someone ignorant is far, far different from calling them stupid). I consider it a lot more moral to reserve vitriol for people who are actually doing something harmful, as opposed to lacking the cunning, knowledge or perspective to make a coherent and valid argument.

That's not very nice of me, I know, but accuracy is more important to me than niceness.

The two aren't mutually exclusive, you know. It's perfectly possible to be accurate without "rubbing their nose in it."

The world is full of people who take pride in being blunt, in calling a spade a spade. The problem is that while these are presented as virtues, strength of character, whatever, they are oftentimes just used as a euphemism for being an asshole. I'd think it would be more productive and respectable not to be confused for that type of person when it is anything but necessary. I wish you would rise above it.

I should reiterate just for emphasis that I am not calling you an asshole (though I'd hope you'd know I wasn't). I just don't think accuracy has to be abandoned in order to consider perception (indeed, even to be nice!). ;-) Maybe this is something on which we'll never agree.

Oh, I know you weren't calling me an asshole. We've known each other long enough, and disagreed on enough things, that I would never interpret it that way. And of course you're right that one can be both accurate and nice, and most of the time I manage to do both. But when I come up against arguments that really are just ridiculous - and I think there were several of them offered here - I just stop being concerned with being nice. Being blunt is not always a virtue, of course, and it may not be in such circumstances. But frankly, it's just not likely to change. I yam what I yam, as Popeye would say, and that's all that I yam.

But more than anything else, I have one primary goal when I write: to be accurate. I take great care to make sure that when I offer an opinion, it is well-reasoned and well thought out and therefore has a high probability of being true.

A very clever "poisoning of the well". From now on, when people read an opinion from Mr. Brayton, they're going to be inclined to assume that it is "well-reasoned and well thought out" and "has a high probability of being true." I don't think I've ever witnessed a preemptive ad hominem strike against one's very own self before. Man, that is just classic.

386sx wrote:

A very clever "poisoning of the well". From now on, when people read an opinion from Mr. Brayton, they're going to be inclined to assume that it is "well-reasoned and well thought out" and "has a high probability of being true." I don't think I've ever witnessed a preemptive ad hominem strike against one's very own self before. Man, that is just classic.

Would they be wrong to be inclined to assume that? I don't think so. There are many people from whom I expect well reasoned and well thought out opinions because that's what I've gotten from them pretty consistently in the past. I think I've earned that same expectation. Which does not, of course, mean I'm never wrong about anything; I've been wrong many times and said so when I'm shown to be. It's hardly poisoning the well to say that I make a strong effort to be accurate and logical in my writing, and it certainly isn't an "ad hominem" against myself (primarily because there is no such thing).

What exactly is the difference between poisoning the well and an ad hominem? Is it just a chronological thing-- that the "poisoning" happens in advance of the argument?

I think that's about right Gretchen. Poisoning the well is kind of a pre-emptive ad hominem. The nice thing (if you want to call it that) about poisoning the well is that it leads the listeners to make the ad hominem attacks on your opponent themselves.