|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 04:06 PM EDT |
This works great if we have the time to evaluate all arguments thoroughly.
We do not. Thus, we need a way to make an estimate of whether an argument is
true. And past performance is an obvious choice of factor in this estimate.
Someone who is known to use a particular fallacy often (knowingly or otherwise)
should be viewed with more skepticism than someone who is known to almost always
make a strong argument.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rfrazier on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 01:33 AM EDT |
>> the ability/requirement to take public responsibility for what one
says.
>That is not a requirement of logic though. Indeed, the desire to hold
people
>responsible for faulty arguments is highly illogical, not to mention
regressive
>and somewhat barbaric.
>It's a form of vengeance. It tells others to "Ignore that person's
>perfectly logical future arguments because he/she was illogical in the
>past." It directly feeds a logical fallacy, and hence is poor logical
>form.
>The logical way to address an incoherent or inconsistent argument is simply
to
>point out its logical inadequacies so that that single argument may be
ignored.
>Nothing else is required.
When I'm evaluating arguments for goodness (soundness), I'm inclined to
distinguish between the goodness of the logical form of the argument (validity)
and the goodness of the premises (truth).
One can have a valid argument with false premises, and one can have invalid
arguments with true premises (and, even, a true conclusion).
Some people manipulate arguments so that they look valid, but aren't, e.g.,
equivocation. Some people make simple logical mistakes. One might be inclined,
if one isn't a barbarian, to look at the cases differently.
When engaged in debate, e.g., legal, political or moral, I'm interested in
non-tautological conclusions, so, paying attention only to the formal aspects of
the argument isn't enough. I'm am also interested in the truth/reasonableness
of the premises they are using. I think that people are responsible for what
they assert to be true, especially when they want the argument they are
presenting to affect my conduct.
Trust is important in debate, even if only for practical reasons. Let's say
that one adopts Regan's maxim, "trust but verify". The amount of
trust one has in a speaker affects the amount of verification one needs to do.
So, for example, if my wife asserts something as true, I'm not inclined to spend
much time verifying it, as she is epistemically very risk adverse. Other people
I know, are willing to take more epistemic risks (in the promise of greater
epistemic payoff), so I'm inclined to spend more time verifying what they say,
if it is important.
When people make claims anonymously, I can check (most of) the logic by looking
at internal aspects of the argument (equivocation, perhaps not). But, that's
not all that I'm interested in, as I have a inclination to know also whether the
argument is sound (valid+true premises) as well as merely formally okay.
If someone makes a claim anonymously that means that I can't build up a picture
of the degree of verification that is needed for that poster (part of holding
someone responsible for what they say). For example, I can't know whether that
person is wont to lying, hyperbole, or making claims on inadequate evidence.
Also (as a purely empirical claim, one which I invite you to verify) it looks
like folk that post anonymously are generally inclined to take more epistemic
risks, since they don't have to bear responsibility for the risk.
So, as I said, I believe that, in most cases, the real benefits that come about
as a result of posting anonymously are outweighed the benefits of people taking
responsibility for what they say.
Best wishes,
Bob
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
