Paul Graham - How to Disagree

[Bootstrap]

Here's a useful discussion of ways people disagree:

How to Disagree (Paul Graham)

If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy ...

The text and the examples it contains are useful. This diagram, from Wikipedia, is a helpful summary:



At the lowest level, least useful, we have this:

DH0. Name-calling.

This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:

u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!

But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like

The author is a self-important dilettante.

is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."

Half-way through, we get to this:

DH4. Counterargument.

At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it's hard to say exactly what.

Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it.

I think this essay is insightful.

[Josh]

I remain sceptical of Paul Graham's essays; he writes a lot about the importance of these things, but then turns around and funds "disruptive" businesses that do the exact opposite.

[RZehr]

Just so I understand…we should go straight to the bottom of the pyramid because it is the broadest and most foundational part? It is the bottom line, right?
We should just cut straight through the fluff covered top, and get to the gold?

[Josh]

Specifically, as Anabaptists, we actually think the substance of who the writer is important, and is a very important part of whether an argument is right or wrong. The idea that you can divorce an idea from the person who created it is not an Anabaptist way of thinking.

[Bootstrap]

I remain sceptical of Paul Graham's essays; he writes a lot about the importance of these things, but then turns around and funds "disruptive" businesses that do the exact opposite.

I have no idea who Paul Graham is or what he says in other settings, but how would you classify what you said here according to Graham's essay? I think I would classify it as:

DH1. Ad Hominem.

An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:

Of course he would say that. He's a senator.

This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?

Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.

You didn't point out anything right or wrong about his essay, identify weaknesses in his argument, etc. You told us how you feel about Paul Graham instead. This is common on MN.

[Bootstrap]

Just so I understand…we should go straight to the bottom of the pyramid because it is the broadest and most foundational part? It is the bottom line, right?
We should just cut straight through the fluff covered top, and get to the gold?

We need to add "[D9] Silliness" to the paradigm - and I do love me some silliness!

[Bootstrap]

Specifically, as Anabaptists, we actually think the substance of who the writer is important, and is a very important part of whether an argument is right or wrong. The idea that you can divorce an idea from the person who created it is not an Anabaptist way of thinking.

Jesus was able to divorce ideas from the people who created them.

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Jesus also praised what the rich young ruler got right, what the woman at the well understood correctly, what the scribe got right about the greatest commandment. Even though he had real issues with all of them.

Does conservative Anabaptist culture really have a high tolerance for ad hominem arguments? What about name calling, dismissing people simply by applying some label to them? If so, is that a good thing?

[Soloist]

Logic would suggest without the foundation of name calling, the rest can’t be progressed to.

Boot, you are a shoe!

Congratulations we have moved to level 2

[Bootstrap]

Logic would suggest without the foundation of name calling, the rest can’t be progressed to.

Boot, you are a shoe!

Congratulations we have moved to level 2

I think that counts as argumentum ad calceum, which is a little different from argumentum ad hominem.

[RZehr]

Logic would suggest without the foundation of name calling, the rest can’t be progressed to.

Boot, you are a shoe!

Congratulations we have moved to level 2

And you are nothing more than a the mispelled bottom of the shoe. Sole-ist.