Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Disagree

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 238 posts

Re: How to Disagree

#161

Post by posborne »

danielrm26 wrote: post #157

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but saying that a senator would vote for a senate pay raise because they're a senator is not an ad hominem attack. This argument is saying that there's a conflict of interest regarding what they're requesting; that's not a personal attack that has nothing to do with the argument, which is what an ad hominem attack is.

I think that the argument given could definitely be considered ad hominem, but as I read it definitely stuck out that a better examples of ad hominem could have been given (that has much less to do with the subject matter at hand).

For instance: "Why should we give creedence to his position on the origin of the universe? He has been divorced twice and is cheating on his current wife... Surely we can't trust what he has to say."

Here the argument is attack by attacking the person. The attack on the person has no direct translation to the dispute at hand.

Re: How to Disagree

#162

Post by markaa »

Wow! So needed, but probably only 1% of those who need this will read it. Helps me understand why there is so much negative response on the internet. markaa

Re: How to Disagree

#163

Post by Hexstream »

xlnt wrote: post #31
pius wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the Flamebaiting category is a useful addition to PG's hierarchy. The new category brings to mind an interesting property of this hierarchy though, namely that it seems to be difficult to respond to an "argument" with a higher order technique than that which was originally presented. For example, if one were disagreeing with a purely ad hominem rant, one would find it futile and nearly impossible to disagree…

It's easy to at least get to DH3 in reply to anything. For example if they say, "you are an idiot" you can contradict them (close enough) by saying, "you haven't supported that statement". If they question your tone or authority, you can contradict by saying that isn't relevant to what position is true. edit: btw my experience is that more often than not i get downvoted if i do this

About the downvoting, maybe it's because they feel you're making a predictable contradiction to a painfully obvious inane trolling? If somebody says something like "you are an idiot", just let them get downmodded alone.

Re: How to Disagree

#164

Post by agentbleu »

gregfjohnson wrote: post #118

Great article. Paul provides a useful illumination of the issue. The great medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas operated at level DH6, often with devastating effect. He would formulate and state the argument he planned to refute with clarity, depth, accuracy, and precision. He often would make his opponent's case better than the opponent had done! I believe his secret was that he was humbly interested in the truth wher…

This reminds me of Karl Popper's in his critique of Marx. Anyone have the quote?

Re: How to Disagree

#165

Post by pixcavator »

If you want DH5-DH6, my advice is: stay away from metaphors! People will react to your metaphor first ("so-and-so is dead", "so-and-so is a lion in a cage" etc) instead of your main thesis. Metaphors aren't "isomorphisms", sorry. They make things more colorful but can't be refuted rationally.

Re: How to Disagree

#166

Post by chrisl »

I think the interesting part about this is how simple it is. It's easy enough to call someone out on a bad argument, but having this implies that we could simply point people to a reference number, thus saving intelligent people from being forced to reexplain logical errors made over and over again.

Re: How to Disagree

#167

Post by potatohead »

Nicely done, and thank you as always for the thought provoking read. Absolutely love your essays.

Enjoy your weekend!

Another thing, along the same web conversation line is the dodge. I have found this very curious and am always fascinated by it.

Essentially, there is a conversation going on. Somebody has posted up something they characterize as factual, the truth, majority view, correct, etc... Somebody else then has their say and after some banter back and forth, it's clear one or the other just isn't correct.

This does not mean the other parties are correct either, just that we have one that is known not to be correct in the conversation.

At this point, we should then expect to see some acceptance, but we don't. That's the dodge right there. A successful dodge means being able to bring that battered point up, in a given venue, over and over and over again.

Frustrating, and also highly entertaining, if you like seeing new forms manifest!

Some that I've seen play out: (some are likely subsets or minor variations of others -->this is just a list compiled over a coupla years talking politics with a close circle of people)

1. Subject change

2. Claim of too many opponents

3. Claim to either be a member of, or opponents of discussion being members of club, with said membership somehow required to complete what is otherwise a non-rational conclusion.

4. Silence

5. Claim of overall subject and or implications of subject complexity being greater than scope of discussion

6. Invoke false comparison

7. Transform rational argument into emotional one

8. The Bible says...

9. Invoke redefinition of common words

10. Invoke slippery label to redefine winners primary point at hand

11. Claim of invalid higher authority / Claim of no high authority

12. Obsfucation, where some degree of acceptance is seen, but wrapped in difficult to reference terms

13. "I forgot, could you remind me again?", used to force other parties to tire of the subject and move on.

14. Necessary party unavailable for comment.

Some of these could be valid, depending on the context. I've got those listed here, with the assumption that it's really a dodge and that context is not at issue.

Re: How to Disagree

#170

Post by aflag »

wallflower wrote: post #33
edw519 wrote: post #6

Mind if I extend your Disagreement Hierarchy? DH-1. Flamebaiting. This is when you preempt that with which you would disagree by stating your case in such a way as to elicit quick disagreement (in the form of DH0 to DH6). Usually done by noticing a subset of all data, forming a hypothesis to explain only that subset, and presenting it as a conclusion. Often done without even realizing it. The relational database mode…

Text-based disagreements aside, I'd like to do an arc off this comment - to talk about the importance of perspective. Guess which two perspective(s) can fuel disagreement... The God perspective (Yeah, you the expert?) "This restaurant is the best in town" The 2nd person perspective (Why should you know what I should do) " You really should try this restaurant." The 1st-person perspective (the only one you can truly o…

I don't think perspective is that much relevant. If someone says "This restaurant is the best in town", it means that of all the other restaurants the person tried, that one is the one he likes best. You don't need to be an expert to have opinions and feelings toward things. If you don't agree that restaurant is the best you can provide info why you think the statement "this restaurant is the best in town" is wrong.

The second person perspective is just a suggestion. Of course you're free not to go there if you don't want to.

Finally, the first person perspective is just one other way to put things. In this case it's more verbose and, before the second phrase, don't even give you as much information as the god's perspective (in god's perspective you know this restaurant is the one the person likes the most, in 1st person perspective you just knows this person likes it). Saying "This restaurant is the best in town. Cooking is great and it's very welcoming." gives you at least the same information as the 1st-person perspective.

I'm saying all that because I hate see people trying to debunk an argument by picking on the guy's perspective. Stuff like "you can't state that as an absolute truth", just because you said something like "this restaurant is the best in town". If you have information that may change that opinion, please give us, otherwise, don't flood the comments with "you don't know that much". That's about the same as DH2.

Post reply on HN