chlamor
10-16-2007, 05:58 PM
Is it Sophistry Yet?
sophistry(noun) - a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone.
Recently, I have experienced an odd thing at DU. In spite of increasing evidence that Bush and Cheney are running a police state, complete with wiretapping, intimidation, a propaganda ministry, secret rendition, torture, and unaccountable mercenary armies - a police state that has trampled all over the Constitution while starting brutal wars of agreession - some of us anti-Bush people have been told to lay off the fascist and Nazi references, because "the evidence isn't there", or "the analogy is flawed".
I was jumped upon for rejecting demands for black-and-white statements when I posted "DUers don't do nuance". I was excoriated for calling people "good Germans". (Tellingly, this attempt at excommunication from DU did not fall on Frank Rich's article by the same title in yesterday's NYT.) I was attacked for using the "Vichy Dems" reference.
Basically, there is a vocal minority here that starts shouting people down any time the question "Is it Fascism yet?" comes up in any way, shape, or form - no matter how tangentially or implicitly. I have posted WW2 analogies on this board for over five years; but it is only in the last five weeks that I have met with organized baiting whenever I dare to bring up a topic that has been my stock in trade.
This is not the way debate used to be carried out at DU. This is not reasonable argumentation.
Reasonable argumentation never works by appealing to the principle that if you don't go along with it, you're being unreasonable. Reasonable argumentation persuades by bringing up facts and ideas that are genuinely and reasonably persuasive and enlightening. It moves your beliefs naturally, without your having to decide that you "should" believe the conclusion. There is no guarantee that your conclusion will be right, but your understanding of the matter at hand will at least be better informed and more refined.
I have thought about this new situation; and I have a question:
IS IT SOPHISTRY YET?
If you haven't experienced what sophistry feels like, this is a great summary:
http://greenlightwiki.com/sophistry/Bas ... _Sophistry (http://greenlightwiki.com/sophistry/Basic_Properties_Of_Sophistry)
Here are some ideas about the Basic Properties Of Sophistry: the things that distinguish sophistry from other forms of reasoning and rhetoric--what gives sophistry its distinctive "smell" or "signature".
Disregard of context. The sophist is concerned entirely with rules: criticizing rules or demanding that rules be followed, regardless of how well the rules apply to the present situation. Implicitly, the sophist sets you up in a cognitive world where there is no possibility of intelligent judgement of particular circumstances. Instead, you are supposed to make appeal to rules which you are not allowed to abandon except by appeal to some higher rule. The rules must apply to all contexts (all "possible worlds" in analytic-philosophy-speak).
Demand for a priori criteria. The sophist typically demands that you be able to state rules by which you will interpret all future evidence and make all future decisions. The sophist then analyzes these rules for flaws, in that they could lead you into delusion in imaginary situations. The rules must be completely stable. If the sophist asks you for a reason why you might do something in one situation, and gives you another situation where the preconditions of that rule apply but you wouldn't exercise that rule, the sophist claims victory. The sophist claims to have humiliated you because he has exposed that you were making decisions without fully articulated a priori criteria. That shows that you're not rational. Not only that, you're changing the rules from one situation to the next. That shows that you're cheating.
Demand for justification before making a move. Of course, this is not always sophistry. In some special areas of life, such as courtroom trials, we demand that a "burden" of specific kinds of evidence be met as a precondition for taking some action. Sophistry tends to extend this need for justification far beyond the areas where it's feasible and useful. Skeptical sophistry tends to push a sort of cognitive hyper-humility, or freezing out of fear of ever being "wrong"--or even being right but not fully justified. If you were to reason as the skeptic suggests that you should reason, you'd never be able to do anything in real life, because you'd never have sufficiently articulated and proven a priori principles to get started, nor evidence to justify your actions according to those principles, nor time to think this stuff through to the demanded degree.
Judging from outside reasoning itself: criticizing without offering content, just attacking or appealing to meta-criteria. The sophist presents himself as a judge of reason itself, while disguising his arguments as an appeal to rationality.
Anyone recognize any of these behaviors occurring at DU? Just asking. :sarcasm:
Of course, if it were that easy to deal with sophistry, it wouldn't be such an insidious and chronic affliction of political discourse.
The sophist, whether arguing skeptically or positively, always offers an argument that is difficult to refute. You know the conclusion is stupid, but it's hard to say what the problem is or "beat it" at its own game. This is because sophistry doesn't break the rules by which we discuss and arrive at shared understanding or shared decisions. Rather, it abuses those rules by lifting them out of the concrete, real-world context that makes them meaningful and useful. To see what's going on, you have to put aside the system of rules and look directly at the real, concrete reality. The sophist can then accuse you of "cheating."
...a common aspect of sophistry: it takes more time to untangle it than most people have.
In the end, whether by intimidation or by sheer, bloody time-wasting, the purpose of sophistry is to shut down new ideas. New ideas are often first offered as metaphors, which are comparisons more than statements of equality. Sophistry declares open season on metaphors, the roots of fresh insight. The history on the importance of metaphor in language is vast:
Throughout history humankind has made use of metaphors. They lie at the heart of proverbs, myths and fables and, as such, are seen by most people as literary devices or figures of poetic or rhetorical speech (Confer, 1988).
Metaphors are, however, far more than just figures of speech (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980; Nadler & Luckner, 1992). They are rather indispensable structures of human understanding by which we figuratively comprehend our world(Hermans & Kempen, 1993).
Metaphors facilitate understanding by means of analogy (Confer, 1988). Essentially the metaphoric process entails the implicit comparison of two unlike bodies. The qualities of one body are transferred to the other to form a new combination that represents a new idea.
In this way we understand or experience one thing in terms of another. Seen from this perspective metaphorical combinations imply a construction of the world (Hermans & Kempen, 1993; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Nadler & Luckner, 1992).
But the sophistry squad does not want new insight. It wants an Inquisition.
Concern with rationality over truth and goodness. Every moment of life is to be like a courtroom trial, where your reasoning is judged according to how solidly established your conclusion is and whether you arrived at your conclusion by the correct rules. Results do not matter, and guesswork--the real-life way of making progress--is strictly forbidden. The sophist tries to shame you for not being "rational" (where "rationality" has been re-referenced so it refers to nothing beyond skill at winning sophistical argumentation games).
----
I am calling not these sophists mere nihilists, who do it simply because they enjoy causing chaos and frustration. Sophistry usually has an agenda. In this case, the agenda is to keep the focus on the horse race, on "winning", without ever asking exactly what the prize is. To focus on the horse race is to lose sight of the political ideas we hold sacred as a democracy. Rome had horse races; Byzantium had horse races; I will make the bold leap to suggest that even Nazi Germany had horse races. They are as marvelous distraction as the football games that Orwell mentioned in his famous quote about the life of a prole.
Let me close by paraphrasing (a form of metaphor) Churchill:
The truth about the authoritarian destruction of democracy in America is so vile that it must be hidden by a bodyguard of sophistry.
--------------------------------------------
NOTES:
A. Given what I just wrote, it would be pretty dumb to get into an argument with a bunch of sophists - many of whom I have on "ignore" already. So, bait me as you will. This is my statement on the matter.
B. In future, when facing sophistical arguments, I will simply reference this post.
C. By the way, people who prefer to have a real debate will benefit from having a vocabulary to describe sophistry, and using it as needed:
pettifogger (noun)
1. A lawyer who deals with unimportant cases, especially somewhat deceitfully or quibblingly.
2. Someone who argues over trivial details; a quibbler.
pettifoggery (noun)
1. The practice or arts of a pettifogger; disreputable tricks; quibbles; chicanery.
prevaricate (verb)
1. To avoid stating the truth or coming directly to the point; to behave or speak evasively.
prevarication (noun)
1. The act or an instance of behaving or speaking evasively
2. (Common Law) A false or deceitful seeming to undertake a thing for the purpose of defeating or destroying it.
equivocation (noun)
1. Use of a word or expression, open to more than one meaning, so as to mislead or confuse
2. To avoid committing oneself in what one says
Found here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 89x2057182 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2057182)
sophistry(noun) - a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone.
Recently, I have experienced an odd thing at DU. In spite of increasing evidence that Bush and Cheney are running a police state, complete with wiretapping, intimidation, a propaganda ministry, secret rendition, torture, and unaccountable mercenary armies - a police state that has trampled all over the Constitution while starting brutal wars of agreession - some of us anti-Bush people have been told to lay off the fascist and Nazi references, because "the evidence isn't there", or "the analogy is flawed".
I was jumped upon for rejecting demands for black-and-white statements when I posted "DUers don't do nuance". I was excoriated for calling people "good Germans". (Tellingly, this attempt at excommunication from DU did not fall on Frank Rich's article by the same title in yesterday's NYT.) I was attacked for using the "Vichy Dems" reference.
Basically, there is a vocal minority here that starts shouting people down any time the question "Is it Fascism yet?" comes up in any way, shape, or form - no matter how tangentially or implicitly. I have posted WW2 analogies on this board for over five years; but it is only in the last five weeks that I have met with organized baiting whenever I dare to bring up a topic that has been my stock in trade.
This is not the way debate used to be carried out at DU. This is not reasonable argumentation.
Reasonable argumentation never works by appealing to the principle that if you don't go along with it, you're being unreasonable. Reasonable argumentation persuades by bringing up facts and ideas that are genuinely and reasonably persuasive and enlightening. It moves your beliefs naturally, without your having to decide that you "should" believe the conclusion. There is no guarantee that your conclusion will be right, but your understanding of the matter at hand will at least be better informed and more refined.
I have thought about this new situation; and I have a question:
IS IT SOPHISTRY YET?
If you haven't experienced what sophistry feels like, this is a great summary:
http://greenlightwiki.com/sophistry/Bas ... _Sophistry (http://greenlightwiki.com/sophistry/Basic_Properties_Of_Sophistry)
Here are some ideas about the Basic Properties Of Sophistry: the things that distinguish sophistry from other forms of reasoning and rhetoric--what gives sophistry its distinctive "smell" or "signature".
Disregard of context. The sophist is concerned entirely with rules: criticizing rules or demanding that rules be followed, regardless of how well the rules apply to the present situation. Implicitly, the sophist sets you up in a cognitive world where there is no possibility of intelligent judgement of particular circumstances. Instead, you are supposed to make appeal to rules which you are not allowed to abandon except by appeal to some higher rule. The rules must apply to all contexts (all "possible worlds" in analytic-philosophy-speak).
Demand for a priori criteria. The sophist typically demands that you be able to state rules by which you will interpret all future evidence and make all future decisions. The sophist then analyzes these rules for flaws, in that they could lead you into delusion in imaginary situations. The rules must be completely stable. If the sophist asks you for a reason why you might do something in one situation, and gives you another situation where the preconditions of that rule apply but you wouldn't exercise that rule, the sophist claims victory. The sophist claims to have humiliated you because he has exposed that you were making decisions without fully articulated a priori criteria. That shows that you're not rational. Not only that, you're changing the rules from one situation to the next. That shows that you're cheating.
Demand for justification before making a move. Of course, this is not always sophistry. In some special areas of life, such as courtroom trials, we demand that a "burden" of specific kinds of evidence be met as a precondition for taking some action. Sophistry tends to extend this need for justification far beyond the areas where it's feasible and useful. Skeptical sophistry tends to push a sort of cognitive hyper-humility, or freezing out of fear of ever being "wrong"--or even being right but not fully justified. If you were to reason as the skeptic suggests that you should reason, you'd never be able to do anything in real life, because you'd never have sufficiently articulated and proven a priori principles to get started, nor evidence to justify your actions according to those principles, nor time to think this stuff through to the demanded degree.
Judging from outside reasoning itself: criticizing without offering content, just attacking or appealing to meta-criteria. The sophist presents himself as a judge of reason itself, while disguising his arguments as an appeal to rationality.
Anyone recognize any of these behaviors occurring at DU? Just asking. :sarcasm:
Of course, if it were that easy to deal with sophistry, it wouldn't be such an insidious and chronic affliction of political discourse.
The sophist, whether arguing skeptically or positively, always offers an argument that is difficult to refute. You know the conclusion is stupid, but it's hard to say what the problem is or "beat it" at its own game. This is because sophistry doesn't break the rules by which we discuss and arrive at shared understanding or shared decisions. Rather, it abuses those rules by lifting them out of the concrete, real-world context that makes them meaningful and useful. To see what's going on, you have to put aside the system of rules and look directly at the real, concrete reality. The sophist can then accuse you of "cheating."
...a common aspect of sophistry: it takes more time to untangle it than most people have.
In the end, whether by intimidation or by sheer, bloody time-wasting, the purpose of sophistry is to shut down new ideas. New ideas are often first offered as metaphors, which are comparisons more than statements of equality. Sophistry declares open season on metaphors, the roots of fresh insight. The history on the importance of metaphor in language is vast:
Throughout history humankind has made use of metaphors. They lie at the heart of proverbs, myths and fables and, as such, are seen by most people as literary devices or figures of poetic or rhetorical speech (Confer, 1988).
Metaphors are, however, far more than just figures of speech (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980; Nadler & Luckner, 1992). They are rather indispensable structures of human understanding by which we figuratively comprehend our world(Hermans & Kempen, 1993).
Metaphors facilitate understanding by means of analogy (Confer, 1988). Essentially the metaphoric process entails the implicit comparison of two unlike bodies. The qualities of one body are transferred to the other to form a new combination that represents a new idea.
In this way we understand or experience one thing in terms of another. Seen from this perspective metaphorical combinations imply a construction of the world (Hermans & Kempen, 1993; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Nadler & Luckner, 1992).
But the sophistry squad does not want new insight. It wants an Inquisition.
Concern with rationality over truth and goodness. Every moment of life is to be like a courtroom trial, where your reasoning is judged according to how solidly established your conclusion is and whether you arrived at your conclusion by the correct rules. Results do not matter, and guesswork--the real-life way of making progress--is strictly forbidden. The sophist tries to shame you for not being "rational" (where "rationality" has been re-referenced so it refers to nothing beyond skill at winning sophistical argumentation games).
----
I am calling not these sophists mere nihilists, who do it simply because they enjoy causing chaos and frustration. Sophistry usually has an agenda. In this case, the agenda is to keep the focus on the horse race, on "winning", without ever asking exactly what the prize is. To focus on the horse race is to lose sight of the political ideas we hold sacred as a democracy. Rome had horse races; Byzantium had horse races; I will make the bold leap to suggest that even Nazi Germany had horse races. They are as marvelous distraction as the football games that Orwell mentioned in his famous quote about the life of a prole.
Let me close by paraphrasing (a form of metaphor) Churchill:
The truth about the authoritarian destruction of democracy in America is so vile that it must be hidden by a bodyguard of sophistry.
--------------------------------------------
NOTES:
A. Given what I just wrote, it would be pretty dumb to get into an argument with a bunch of sophists - many of whom I have on "ignore" already. So, bait me as you will. This is my statement on the matter.
B. In future, when facing sophistical arguments, I will simply reference this post.
C. By the way, people who prefer to have a real debate will benefit from having a vocabulary to describe sophistry, and using it as needed:
pettifogger (noun)
1. A lawyer who deals with unimportant cases, especially somewhat deceitfully or quibblingly.
2. Someone who argues over trivial details; a quibbler.
pettifoggery (noun)
1. The practice or arts of a pettifogger; disreputable tricks; quibbles; chicanery.
prevaricate (verb)
1. To avoid stating the truth or coming directly to the point; to behave or speak evasively.
prevarication (noun)
1. The act or an instance of behaving or speaking evasively
2. (Common Law) A false or deceitful seeming to undertake a thing for the purpose of defeating or destroying it.
equivocation (noun)
1. Use of a word or expression, open to more than one meaning, so as to mislead or confuse
2. To avoid committing oneself in what one says
Found here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 89x2057182 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2057182)