Errors Of Logical Treason
Posted in Blogosphere, Logic, Quickies, Thinking Critically on | 3 minutes | 10 Comments →
Just a quick log-on to vent about something momentarily. In my previous post about why I'd like to debate with a computer, we suggested that computers are effectively immune from errors of human pride. What's pissing me off at the moment is the amount of people that are perfectly willing to accuse others of all sorts of things that require some degree of clairvoyance, from arguing in bad faith to sophism to outright lying, usually all over some petty, related misunderstanding.
What's wrong with the idea of being cordial and extending the benefit of the doubt? I suppose the online world is just a reflection of reality, where far too many people are just impatient and all too willing to cast blame on the other person. Far too often, I feel like people are bumping directly into me, then telling me that I was in their way! They'll misunderstand some statement I made, then turn around and accuse me of sophism because my subsequent reasoning doesn't conform to their misunderstanding!! I mean this stuff would be hilarious were it not so maddeningly frustrating.
There are definitely commenter personality types and I intend to explore this concept in more depth and detail in the upcoming months. Suffice it to say for now that there are commenters who feel that putting others down somehow strengthens their own case. It doesn't. There are commenters who will develop a personal distaste for somebody, and let that distaste linger over all future interactions with that person. Such is irrational and hasty generalization. There are commenters who never have anything positive to say at all, and seem to delight in nothing more than exposing holes in logic; so much so that their own vision can be distorted. All of these things constitute logical treason. Now I'm no Puritan. I've likely committed each of the above errors. But I think the distinction lies in recognizing these errors of logical treason and their negative effects on discussion, and then taking any and all steps to remove them. There are far too many full-grown adults in the blogosphere who get stuck in these patterns.
Part of me just burns so intensely for pure debate and that was the motivation behind the idea of debating a computer. So many commenters in the blogosphere are astonishingly intelligent people, but it just takes a lick of vinegar to spoil the whole show. I just want to test ideas and I see no reason atheists and believers can't see eye to eye or at least converse without insult. Don't get me wrong, I've been in some flame wars, but my default strategy is most certainly to give the other person the benefit of the doubt. I don't understand you? Then I'll say as much and ask for clarification. But I won't assume you're some nefarious, sophist troll out to obfuscate.
That's not rational, and neither is the one who takes that route.
jim
says...cl:
Since this post is most likely aimed at me, amongst others, I’ll respond-
“Far too often, I feel like people are bumping directly into me, then telling me that I was in their way!”
The fact that this keeps happening to you, and yet you choose to direct your interrogations outward, speaks volumes. ‘Nuff said.
cl
says...Believe me jim, whenever there’s a mistake or a misunderstanding, instead of denigrating and belittling the person I’m talking with, the first thing I do is wonder if I might have messed up, or if I might have gone wrong. You on the other hand have your own personal style which is, well, quite pungent to say the least but not much in substance.
So offer all the psycho-analysis you want, but I’d suggest getting on the couch yourself.
cl
says...Ha! Reading into things a bit much there, jim? Bit egocentric, maybe? This post was actually inspired by another commenter, since you obviously didn’t follow the link. We all make mistakes. And your post is the one titled, But How Do You Know You’ve Been Stabbed?
jim
says...cl:
Since you posted this right in the middle of our discussion over at ER, and since your post concerns issues that came up during that discussion, and since you’ve only posted this disclaimer AFTER you made a previous reply containing no such denial, I can only assume that this is just a pathetic little attempt to score a last minute point. Any questions I had about your sincerity have now evaporated. It’s official: You’re a fraud.
I also read your ‘stab’ piece, and as is par for the course, nothing’s gotten through to you. Wow, you’ve really turned out to be quite a joke. Disappointing, to say the least. And you wonder why you get such reactions again and again? Really???
cl
says...Whatever you say, jim, whatever you say. I’ve gotten used to and come to accept your constant spew of negative vitriol by now. I can only wonder in terror what you were like as a Bible thumper!
Look, when you want to actually discuss something intelligently and free of denigration and polemical nonsense, I’m all for it, and we’ll see about this little “sincerity” concern of yours.
Public challenge to jim: Again you make a claim and offer denigration without explanation. What is it that you claim “hasn’t gotten through to me” regarding the stab piece? What angle do you think I’ve missed? Let’s finish a conversation
like men, otherwise save all this personal BS about how it’s “exquisitely torturous” to talk to me, and oh-so-terrible and sophist, and whah, whah, whah, cry me a river, yet you never seem to fail to write the longest comments in the thread to or about me, or to come over here and whine some more when that doesn’t suffice. Is that like some kind of weird conflict fetish or something?
This post accomplished its goal. If you want to be that guy who’s gonna always heckle me and act like a prick because of past instances where we’ve obviously talked past each other, so be it, but I’m not going to respond to your inane, bully’ish attitude on Duncan’s blog any longer. I value what Duncan has to say, and further fielding of your negative vitriol will certainly take its toll on his blog, so whenever you feel like lashing out at me or accusing me, let’s do it here. It’s our business, not the rest of the world’s.
C’mon man, Obama’s the President. Act like a grown-up.
Brad
says...Sounds like it.
Looks like you’re between a rock and a hard place in trying to find assumptions.
Lifeguard
says...Hey there, Cl.
As someone who has a reputation for being “soft” on theists and has taken lumps for it, I sympathize with this post. I think a lot of these apologetic debates usuallt start off substantive and then turn into a contest of wills, and it certainly doesn’t help that many consider this to be a very high stakes game. That is, if the Christians “win,” then we’re going to end up living in the Great Evangelical Reich, and if the atheists “win,” then we’ll be looking at government ordered compulsory abortions and everyone will be forced into a gay marriage. Add that we’re talking about deeply held convictions on both sides that are often tied up with culture and upbringing, and you’ve got quite a cauldron of emotions there easily brought to a rolling boil.
Double, double, toil, and trouble…
Personally, I don’t find anything “soft” about assuming someone is sincere, giving them the benefit of the doubt, and addressing arguments instead of the individual. If anything, I find it a lot more effective to ask (what I think are) the difficult questions in a manner that makes it as hard as possible for anyone to think I’ve got some kind of agenda. I’m clear on where I stand but I don’t treat a Christian like he or she is deliberately trying to decieve anyone as opposed to wrong as I see it.
I also try to bear in mind two things: (a) I’m likely not going to convince the person I’m arguing with, and (b) when I get to the point where we reach a real impasse (emotionally or in terms of the argument itself), I politely state that I’m making my last point and I DO NOT return to the post to reply UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Otherwise I find I’m just asking for a pointless headache.
Life is too short.
Lifeguard
says...Basically, I set myself one simple goal: to make the person I’m arguing with and anyone who may be lurking out there to think hard about my point of view. I challenge the other side without assuming I have necessarily succeeded at blowing them out of the water. Once I get to the point where I feel I’ve accomplished that (or in the case of any particularly stubbonr opponent, that it is impossible), I pick up my marbles and go home.
cl
says...Thanks. I’m not surprised. But you know what I say to those who accuse thusly? Three of the people who’s rational opinions I value the most happen to be you, Brad, and commenter Mike who I haven’t seen around in a couple of weeks. You’ll all disagree with me and catch the blunders I make, and it works good. I value your opinions because I don’t sense that any of you are desperate in an effort to denigrate me. Especially in the case of you and Brad, I treat your comments with the highest integrity, because both of you have proven to me in separate instances that you reject partisan nonsense, for example. But those commenters who are only out to derail just come in, scatter everything all over the place, and leave.
This reasonably supports my general observation that theism vs. atheism / science vs. religion are just another set of false dichotomies like Republican vs. Democrat / liberal vs. conservative.
One would think such would be conducive to logic, but apparently that’s not a universal observation.
And I’ve noticed of all the people who make the “last comment” comment, you are indeed the only one to date who’s kept it. I’ve experimented with several strategies for dealing with BS, and unwittingly, some of them actually fan it on. The ‘rebut-every-rebut’ strategy can get tiring and draining for everyone. OTOH, when people make all kinds of denigrating, personal statements and such, I just feel the need to continually counter their claims.
Oh well, at the end of the day we’re all just people talking, and what’s another mouth flapping on the internet I suppose?
Brad
says...What frustrates me is that they’ve all taken on cultural identities, so that they can be argued about on the plane of subjectivity instead of the plane of objectivity. And people naturally tend towards exploring the first plane, probably because it’s funner and easier. One group of Christians act like ignorant assholes, and somehow by ripple effect the entire body of beliefs in Christianity is taken less seriously. One atheist writer revels in displaying his snarky ignorance, and people think such comes with the territory of atheism, so to speak. We tend to over-associate and -attribute in cognizing society; it’s psychologically easier to oversimplify everything.