For years Paul Graham has been writing some of the most crisply insightful essays of anyone on the internet. Today I came across (again) his 2008 advice on how to disagree. Of course you should read it yourself, but here’s the tl;dr.
He proposes a hierarchy of forms of disagreement, viz.,
- DH6. Refuting the Central Point.
- DH5. Refutation.
- DH4. Counterargument.
- DH3. Contradiction.
- DH2. Responding to Tone.
- DH1. Ad Hominem.
- DH0. Name-calling.
Of course, he’s in favour of higher forms of disagreement. (I reversed his order of presentation to put the higher forms at the “top”.)
Pair this with Daniel Dennett’s How to compose a successful critical commentary:
- You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
- You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
- You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
- Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
Thanks to el__vaquero on flickr for image.
Hey Tim
Thanks for sending this on,
Interesting to me because I have been working along similar lines.
Best,
Ralph
Dr. Ralph H.Johnson, FRSC
Professor Emeritus
Department of Philosophy
University of Windsor
Windsor, ON N9B3P4
CANADA
________________________________
Good to hear, Ralph. Look forward to seeing your take.
Hey Tim,
In the attached document are some thoughts of mine on your recent post.
All best,
Ralph
Dr. Ralph H.Johnson, FRSC
Professor Emeritus
Department of Philosophy
University of Windsor
Windsor, ON N9B3P4
CANADA
________________________________