Suggestion How to discuss: Hierarchy of Disagreement

[MichaelMc]

A recent thread had me looking up ad hominem attacks. Which lead to Graham's hierarchy of Disagreement, which seemed useful.

Some things it points out are:
- Name calling is not a counter argument.
- I do x and haven't died doesn't address if x is generally (still) optimal.
- That's wrong, x is better, with no why. Is not an argument.

The lower levels are not counter arguments, and many are just noise. Only the top three are counter arguments, yet they differ in if they relate to some minor side point (noise) or to the central issue.

Graham's article, How to Disagree, describes them further.

There are likely other categorizations of arguments, but this seemed a useful one.

For example, in response to an off-track debate one might post:

"""
Your response:
- says Fred is wrong, but doesn't say why (contradiction), or
- Argues about something else besides the main point (counter argument), or
- Nit picks at a side issue, but ignores the central issue of discussion (refutation).

A further explanation is in Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.
Can you raise your response to a higher level?

"""

(Edited to make the last part an example post)

 

[Akimbo]

I agree that your suggestion would improve ScubaBoard, and virtually all forms of human discourse, but the challenge is incorporating it. Any suggestions?

 

[tursiops]

I agree that your suggestion would improve ScubaBoard, and virtually all forms of human discourse, but the challenge is incorporating it. Any suggestions?

It would help a great deal if postings were clear on what the "central point" is!

Usually it seems either the OP does not know, or backs away from it and changes it when refuted, or the readers misinterpret what is the central point (purhaps purposefully, to move the issue to something they know about) and ramble on about the wrong topic.

 

[MichaelMc]

I agree that your suggestion would improve ScubaBoard, and virtually all forms of human discourse, but the challenge is incorporating it. Any suggestions?

It was sort of a placeholder for when that diagram, or similar one, might be used to refocus a discussion. And to raise a bit of visibility to the usefulness of something like it. It could be part of the language we use when "debate responses" miss the track. As a language to nudge people away from "x works just fine, you're wrong." level of response.

The article points out that counter arguments often are arguing some completely different point or issue, which we see often, and seemingly as a supposed counter argument to the main issue.

(I'm not making an argument about clear off-topic discussion, that is different.)

 

[divad]

"Ass Hat" just sounds funny....is that so wrong?

 

[MichaelMc]

For example posting in response to a less helpful post:

Your response:
- says Fred is wrong, but doesn't say why. (contradiction) , or
- Argues about something else besides the main point, (counter argument), or
- Nit picks at a side issue, but ignores the central issue of discussion. (refutation)

A further explanation is in Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.
Can you raise your response to a higher level?

 

[MichaelMc]

"Ass Hat" just sounds funny....is that so wrong?

A reply like that would likely be a terms of service violation as name calling and best handled by reporting it.
A further explanation is in ...
Can you raise your response to a higher level?

 

[Alaskan Scuba Dude]

Let's begin with two: name-calling and responding with tone. The moderators have been flagrant in their responses to such postings. Any suggestions pertinent do stimulate the discussion, but somehow are flagged and deleted. I've also noticed a pecking order where the OP is ostracized for their input. Politics runs the world.

 

[MichaelMc]

Politics runs the world.

I think that falls under "The world is not perfect, but we take what steps we can to make it better."

 

[divad]

A replay like that would likely be a terms of service violation as name calling and best handled by reporting it.
A further explanation is in ...
Can you raise your response to a higher level?

Are you able to define "ass hat"?