tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post8227855795484160637..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: To Fling Poo or Not to Fling Poo...Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40198406461002386082013-02-22T12:15:42.300-05:002013-02-22T12:15:42.300-05:00I just noticed that Massimo has previously posted ...I just noticed that Massimo has previously posted in a critical fashion on the paper I linked to above. I have read Massimo's post and a number of the other critiques along with the answer from Mercier and Sperber.<br /><br />I can see Massimo's point that this looks like a 'just so' Evo Psch story without a proper means to test the hypothesis. I was drawn to the story as it resonated strongly with my intuitions concerning the pervasiveness of confirmation bias in personal arguments and the potential for more accurate evaluation in group contexts.<br /><br />Even on this site where the motto is 'truth springs from argument amongst friends' it often seems that the personal desire to win arguments predominates over a collective desire to move towards truth. So I think the topic is an important one. What is the best way to make use of our argumentative tendencies while also being receptive to evaluate the arguments of the collective. Perhaps trying to make evolutionary case is not helpful.Seth_bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14562316879162720028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1386155608855648102013-02-22T07:03:38.958-05:002013-02-22T07:03:38.958-05:00Do apes fling poo to annoy others? dispose of exce...Do apes fling poo to annoy others? dispose of excess waste? or a combination of the two? DaveShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15840516954793215700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-88815642457170949422013-02-21T13:58:07.667-05:002013-02-21T13:58:07.667-05:00... and in this conversation, the "meta-conve...... and in this conversation, the "meta-conversation" is the topic, so it's entirely appropriate.sean s.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04190153587965701495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-3994809950717189002013-02-21T13:44:32.983-05:002013-02-21T13:44:32.983-05:00Many good takeaways from this, the best (imho) bei...Many good takeaways from this, the best (imho) being: "<i>if change is possible at all, ... it’s easier to change behavior rather than belief. Beliefs are so essential to who we are, or at least who we feel ourselves to be. And as social creatures, we humans are literally awash in configurations of reinforcement and punishment as we navigate that social environment.</i>"<br /><br />Thanks.sean s.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04190153587965701495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-57909300694571914382013-02-21T11:49:08.997-05:002013-02-21T11:49:08.997-05:00If you've ever have had to clean out a horse b...If you've ever have had to clean out a horse barn you've found yourself knee deep in, you'll know the only Way to do it is to grab a shovel and start throwin.<br /><br />= = MJAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01897595473268353450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-20356199325585988732013-02-20T22:50:01.379-05:002013-02-20T22:50:01.379-05:00>I teach a course on logical fallacies, and I c...>I teach a course on logical fallacies, and I can assure you that I never heard of this one.<br /><br />I suspect that's because it was invented by bloggers as a generalized excuse for crappy behaviour.ianpollockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15579140807988796286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-89784898885279261042013-02-20T21:13:42.781-05:002013-02-20T21:13:42.781-05:00St. David,
> the "tone argument" is,...St. David,<br /><br />> the "tone argument" is, in fact, a fallacy (ie a logically fallacious argument) <<br /><br />No, it isn't. I teach a course on logical fallacies, and I can assure you that I never heard of this one.<br /><br />> "Your perception/opinion/complaint is not to be taken seriously because you employ sarcastic/insulting/inflammatory language" <<br /><br />As you should be able to see, this has nothing whatsoever to do with logic. It is a statement about human psychology. And it is often (though not always) true.<br /><br />> it is philosophically naive to belief that any discussion about fundamental values or value judgements has to track truth <<br /><br />It may not track truth, but it better track logical coherence, yes?<br /><br />> Those who presuppose an intellectual method of settling fundamental value disputes curtail the very discourse they seek to enhance. <<br /><br />How *else* are you going to settle disputes? By yelling people out of court? Shooting at them? Or what?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-42277154171629272812013-02-20T20:40:27.366-05:002013-02-20T20:40:27.366-05:00Firstly, the "tone argument" is, in fact...Firstly, the "tone argument" is, in fact, a fallacy (ie a logically fallacious argument) and it is called a fallacy in the respective discussions. This is justified because it is usually employed as if it were a sound argument ("Your perception/opinion/complaint is not to be taken seriously because you employ sarcastic/insulting/inflammatory language"). Deply entrenched social norms as well as the psychological persistence of prejudice keep many people from questioning the argument's 'logic'. Consequently, the argument enables discrimination and exclusion of minority viewpoints and complaints while doing nothing (or, at least, not much) to improve other discussions. Obviously, the "tone argument" is seldomly employed in discussions devoid of fundamental value judgements, minority interests, social policy or similar issues.<br />The fact that you seem to be unaware of this demonstrates your unfamiliarity with discussions about the "tone argument's" role in discourse.<br /><br />Secondly, it is philosophically naive to belief that any discussion about fundamental values or value judgements has to track truth, since values are nothing to be discovered (either rationally or empirically) and value judgements are not truth-apt. It is impossible to change someone's fundamental value judgements by the "unforced force” of rational argument alone. Therefore, a discussion about fundamental values or value judgements (and especially disagreement about them) is not supposed to track truth or be truth-conducive. Those who presuppose an intellectual method of settling fundamental value disputes curtail the very discourse they seek to enhance.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17084601198893889528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-49878373005263822672013-02-20T19:05:24.029-05:002013-02-20T19:05:24.029-05:00Ian
"I think the empirical claim you seem to...Ian<br /><br />"I think the empirical claim you seem to be making here is most likely false. Moral change (whether progress or regress) is very much driven by what people think they can get away with socially. So making a pariah of your opponent may be quite rhetorically effective (whether it's ethical is another question)"<br /><br />This depends I think on how popular a given view is across society. If believing in god for example is a popular view then mocking a believing 'opponent' will not cause that person to feel like a pariah. I suppose even unpopular views will only be hardened in the holder of the view so long as they belong to a sub-culture that confirms their views.<br /><br />The effectiveness of mocking probably most often relates to your Obama/Romney example whereby the effect occurs on an audience other than the person being mocked. Seth_bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14562316879162720028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-18007386304330310532013-02-20T19:00:39.236-05:002013-02-20T19:00:39.236-05:00Hi Ian -
"Probably, although note that rheto...Hi Ian -<br /><br />"Probably, although note that rhetorical effectiveness with an *audience* may show a tradeoff against rhetorical effectiveness with one's *interlocutor.*"<br /><br />Good point. Agreed. I didn't have an audience in mind when talking about discourse in this post, though. I was more thinking about the one-on-one conversations we have with people on a day to day basis. <br /><br />"I think the empirical claim you seem to be making here is most likely false."<br /><br />In my last paragraph/sentence, I was more summing up behavior change in general. I don't think spouses' actions are driven by what they can get away with with each other -or am I just naive?! <br /><br />But I guess I'm not completely naive - your point is well-taken with regard to workplace behavior, for instance. And I agree that, from a politics-perspective, making a pariah of one's opponent would have some efficacy. Though I remember reading somewhere that the televised debates don't really sway voters. Can't remember where I saw that...Steve Neumannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07711295082644210782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-59529912721272575452013-02-20T18:46:50.814-05:002013-02-20T18:46:50.814-05:00>How often do we argue with the aim of getting ...>How often do we argue with the aim of getting at the truth of a matter (dialectics)? How often do we argue with the aim of persuading someone (rhetoric)? I’d be willing to guess that we tend to want to convince more often than we want to discover.<br /><br />Probably, although note that rhetorical effectiveness with an *audience* may show a tradeoff against rhetorical effectiveness with one's *interlocutor.* (Obama wasn't hoping to convince Romney in those Town Hall debates.) Demonizing your interlocutors views may close your interlocutor's mind, but be a very powerful technique with the watching, passive audience.<br /><br />My biggest issue with your post is here:<br /><br />>Ultimately, if change is possible at all, I think it’s easier to change behavior rather than belief.<br /><br />Absolutely. But then you say,<br /><br />>When we consciously intend to change the behavior of others, we don’t really need to resort to name-calling, caustic sarcasm, or condescension...<br /><br />I think the empirical claim you seem to be making here is most likely false. Moral change (whether progress or regress) is very much driven by what people think they can get away with socially. So making a pariah of your opponent may be quite rhetorically effective (whether it's ethical is another question).ianpollockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15579140807988796286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-82677913991543008602013-02-20T18:11:46.989-05:002013-02-20T18:11:46.989-05:00Hi Steve,
I think you would find this PDF very in...Hi Steve,<br /><br />I think you would find this PDF very interesting:<br />http://www.sjsu.edu/people/anand.vaidya/courses/c5/s2/Why%20Do%20Humans%20Reason%20Sperber.pdf<br /><br />The paper I mention is presented, followed by a critique from quite a few researches in the field, and then Mercier and Sperber respond.Seth_bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14562316879162720028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-65061076111109737482013-02-20T18:07:03.336-05:002013-02-20T18:07:03.336-05:00I haven't read the paper, but on the face of i...I haven't read the paper, but on the face of it I would say it seems reasonable to me. And I'm aware of some studies, which I can't recall off the top of my head, that argue for an evolutionary advantage of some sort being conferred on those humans who communicate well, creatively, and persuasively - or a combo of all three. Steve Neumannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07711295082644210782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-77466107267994256032013-02-20T18:00:08.771-05:002013-02-20T18:00:08.771-05:00See also the Rationally Speaking podcast with Moon...See also the Rationally Speaking podcast with Mooney:<br /><br />http://www.rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/rs79-chris-mooney-on-the-republican-war-on-science.htmlAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-68952417133500644282013-02-20T17:56:33.271-05:002013-02-20T17:56:33.271-05:00There is also Chris Mooney's "The Republi...There is also Chris Mooney's "The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality". The thesis here is that "liberal" vs. "conservative" personality types will shape how data is filtered and conclusions are reached, so arguments have a limited effect. Knowing about the science behind this, he claims, is at least a step in the direction of understanding differences.<br /><br />www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/brain-difference-democrats-republicansPhilip Thrifthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03021615111948806998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-74107612382290410232013-02-20T16:40:14.917-05:002013-02-20T16:40:14.917-05:00St. David, while I have concerns with Steve's ...St. David, while I have concerns with Steve's post, I don't see how tone concerns can be dismissed with Full Generality as "privileged." Tone is a meta-issue, having to do with how a conversation is carried out, rather than the conversation itself. As such, it can serve to derail, but it can also be quite relevant. We have to judge on a case by case basis.<br /><br />I'm guessing feminists encounter "tone" conversations as a derailing tactic often, and so have a reflex dislike for them. But calling tone concerns a "fallacy" across the board is just nuts.<br /><br />And ultimately, it sounds an awful lot like a plea to completely excuse the author from *any* constraints of conversational ethics.<br /><br />Meta-conversations can be abused to derail conversations, but sometimes they actually do need to happen.ianpollockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15579140807988796286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-44653700791778394542013-02-20T15:24:53.440-05:002013-02-20T15:24:53.440-05:00St. David -
If you could offer up some of your o...St. David - <br /><br />If you could offer up some of your own arguments in your own words, then I'd be more than happy to engage in a discussion with you. Steve Neumannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07711295082644210782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1955029475469274292013-02-20T14:54:48.524-05:002013-02-20T14:54:48.524-05:00I am wondering Steven if you are familiar with the...I am wondering Steven if you are familiar with the paper by Mercier and Sperber, 'Why do humans reason? Arguments<br />for an argumentative theory'.<br /><br />As the title suggests the authors make a case that the function of reasoning is argumentative. They argue that being persuasive in human communication super-cedes fact or truth finding in evolutionary importance.<br /><br />This theory does seem to correspond with our robust tendency towards the confirmation bias.Seth_bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14562316879162720028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-72055768982265207752013-02-20T14:45:34.997-05:002013-02-20T14:45:34.997-05:00Please stop jumping up and claiming a fallacy once...Please stop jumping up and claiming a fallacy once something follows a pattern. And I'm about to do the same thing here: you're committing the fallacy fallacy. Just because something is an informal fallacy doesn't mean it's false or that the argument isn't correct. In this case, he's not committing to saying that saying things nicely makes them true...no truth claim about civility making things more true makes the informal fallacy here a bit moot.<br /><br />The point here is a *rhetorical* or a *pedagogical* one. Often, emphasizing shared values will increase the *efficacy* of your argument in its purpose to achieve some ends: namely change belief or behavior. That doesn't make it not true. Is it true that those who police the forum use civility to silence outsiders? Sure. It's also true that within civil zones people are much safer and it's easier to get them to at least consider new ideas without believing them...which is the first step to critical thinking. This is also an empirical claim about the kinds of arguments that work to change belief or behavior (rather than to express or demonstrate truth), which has some evidence that backs it up, namely from folks like Dan Kahan, etc. If you have evidence that refutes their evidence, I'd like to hear it.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16570683127111834523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-46082247693199833882013-02-20T09:29:10.050-05:002013-02-20T09:29:10.050-05:00Your comment is entiteled, superficial, nonsensica...Your comment is entiteled, superficial, nonsensical, and it demonstrates your position of privilege as well as an exclusive perspective. <br /><br />Basically, all you do is defending the "tone argument" which is not only a fallacy but - more importantly - an instrument of oppression in many discourses about value judgements, civil rights, and social policy issues regarding minority interests.<br /><br />Educate yourself.<br /><br />http://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/the-tone-argument/<br /><br />http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/resources/mirror-derailing-for-dummies/<br /><br />http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/02/14/the-desert-tortoises-with-boltcutters-civility-pledge/<br /><br />http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argumentAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17084601198893889528noreply@blogger.com