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)

 

[MichaelMc]

Are you able to define "ass hat"?

Not the central issue. That is a mod level issue. Their mountain to fight on. Or their Abyssal plain.

 

[divad]

Sounds like the hierarchy of.....nevermind.

 

[boulderjohn]

Here is an anecdote that will illustrate the central problem.

I was in a discussion with someone, and I planned out a sequence of logical steps leading to a point that would show that he was incorrect. I never got there, because he kept interrupting me. I could not complete a sentence. That led to some frustrated ill will. As we talked about it later, I said that his constant interruptions kept me from making my point. He said triumphantly that it was part of his strategy. He was smart enough to see where I was going, and he realized that if he let me get there, I would prove him wrong and win the argument. He therefore had to use constant interruptions to keep me from proving him wrong.

In summary, he had realized that I could prove that he was wrong, and in his view, the purpose of an argument is not to arrive at the truth but to have your original belief prevail. He felt he had "won" the argument by preventing me from making the point he knew would prove him wrong. He was quite happy about that.

I have been in more than a few ScubaBoard discussions like that, one in particular pretty recently. If the other side's view is to prevent your point from prevailing, then all logic and discussion ethics will go out the window.

 

[MichaelMc]

I agree people do that. Calling them out on it seems like it might at least make it explicit they are ignoring the issue. Maybe stop, maybe abstain when repeatedly called out and incapable of raising to a higher level of discussion.

 

[boulderjohn]

I used to teach logic and rhetoric. What I used to tell students was that if they learned to think clearly and use logic to present that clear thinking in discussions, they still wouldn't win any arguments, and they would really get people mad at them.

 

[MichaelMc]

and they would really get people mad at them.

A risk. And masters of rhetoric is not the goal. As there are certainly some of those who use that knowledge and skill to no particularly useful end. But some basic language to clean up discussions seems useful and possible.

 

[MichaelMc]

I would think that a productive use of knowledge of rhetoric is to recognize when discussion is missing the mark, so that we can improve it so we get somewhere.

I hope that many here are interested in learning about Scuba. Possibly the noise created by those who are not interested in that can be called out by a clear scheme, such as this one. Then those interested in learning can more clearly distinguish between productive comments from comments perhaps best just set aside.

 

[Alaskan Scuba Dude]

I hope that many here are interested in learning about Scuba. Possibly the noise created by those who are not interested in that can be called out by a clear scheme, such as this one. Then those interested in learning can more clearly distinguish between productive comments from comments perhaps best just set aside.

I for one am interested in opinions based on their experiences, and to read comments which concur to my way of thinking. So no comment is irrelevant provided it adds relevance.

 

[MichaelMc]

At the risk of getting people mad at me:

I for one am interested in opinions based on their experiences,

Sure. In conditions x y z, I've found a. Though that is different from: a is best period.

and to read comments which concur to my way of thinking.

Concur to the experiences you are likely to see? To your set of priorities? Both good.
Or, just agreeing with you. Hmm. not so great. You might just be wrong, seriously misinformed, or living in a world no one else lives in.

So no comment is irrelevant provided it adds relevance

Kind of a tautology, useful if useful... Not so useful.
Plus I'm sure there is some glimmer of added usefulness buried in some happy unnamed diver's posts, but digging it out of the reams of text may not be productive, and surrounded by lots of un-useful stuff.

 

[Alaskan Scuba Dude]

In summary, he had realized that I could prove that he was wrong, and in his view, the purpose of an argument is not to arrive at the truth but to have your original belief prevail. He felt he had "won" the argument by preventing me from making the point he knew would prove him wrong. He was quite happy about that.

He had realized or you had surmised that he had realized? Everyone on this forum has the opportunity to make their point without interruptions. That's a given fact. It's entirely up to the reader as to whether they act on that information.

Laughter is good for the heart.