deceit or obfuscation -- different only by degrees I would argue. it's a serious problem for public discourse about contemporary science.

ageee with rik except don't believe the two forms are materially different; they're techniques employed as the situation permits (and the practitioner is able) to achieve the same end.

I'd like to be able to say improvement's likely
but that's far too sanguine. Only advice I could offer is to resist temptation in one's own conduct (and, relatedly, not to extoll or applaud similar practices by others which might happen to support one's particular view on a matter.

It's not a problem caused by scientific controversy or even controversy itself--it's a problem with being human.

Who said that "scientific" arguments have to be fair?
Orr used a watered down version of one of Schopenhauer's many tricks.

that link is great.

Kevembuangga:

Dittos to p-ter. If I was educated, I'da known that and said it first.

But, since you're versed in that sort of thing, I'd guess you'd know if old Shope ever listed just repeating the same argument in different words without attempting rebuttal or superior explanation. And, if you'd like an example, see the series under the "irrationality" post above. One never even knows whether those one addresses with explanation are interested in clarity, better understanding, or something else entirely.

that link was worth the post! that is what i mean by value added comments....

>Who said that "scientific" arguments have to be fair?

Seems to me the whole essence of science is reasonableness in argument, both in thought and in discourse - that's how you arrive at the truth. Otherwise you're just a really well-educated con-artist.

I'm not implying a single action makes Orr a con-artist of course.

Realized that that link is a catalog of quite a few actually compact pieces, so went and read (so far) about half--quite enough to realize that there's a great deal of wit mixed in with descriptions of the techniques. Some of them reminded me, in tone, of Bierce's "Devil's Dictionary." And, speaking of that work, anybody know what happened to "Upstream," the site that called itself a "heterodox" magazine? I remember it not only for its articles but for interesting tidbits in the left margin and the page headings of bits from Bierce's work.

He used this trick too:

If you know that you have no reply to the arguments which your opponent advances, you may, by a fine stroke of irony, declare yourself to be an incompetent judge: "What you now say passes my poor powers of comprehension; it may be all very true, but I can't understand it, and I refrain from any expression of opinion on it". In this way you insinuate to the bystanders, with whom you are in good repute, that what your opponent says is nonsense. Thus, when Kant's Kritik appeared, or, rather, when it began to make a noise in the world, many professors of the old eclectic school declared that they failed to understand it, in the belief that their failure settled the business. But when the adherents of the new school proved to them that they were quite right, and had really failed to understand it, they were in a very bad humour.

This is a trick which may be used only when you are quite sure that the audience thinks much better of you than of your opponent. A professor, for instance, may try it on a student.

Strictly, it is a case of the preceding trick: it is a particularly malicious assertion of one's own authority, instead of giving reasons. The counter-trick is to say: "I beg your pardon; but, with your penetrating intellect, it must be very easy for you to understand anything; and it can only be my poor statement of the matter that is at fault"; and then go on to rub it into him until he understands it nolens volens, and sees for himself that it was really his own fault alone. In this way you parry his attack. With the greatest politeness he wanted to insinuate that you were talking nonsense; and you, with equal courtesy, prove to him that he is a fool.

mjb : the whole essence of science is reasonableness in argument, both in thought and in discourse

In thought, certainly, but in discourse?
Not to bring in Feyerabend and his ilk but what do you do when your opponents themselves resort to Schopenhauer's eristic tricks?

Not to bring in Feyerabend and his ilk but what do you do when your opponents themselves resort to Schopenhauer's eristic tricks?

I cut to the end, largely because I liked the chapter title (Become Personal, Insulting, Rude) but it turns out to have what I consider to be very good advice for blog commenters:


The only safe rule, therefore, is that which Aristotle mentions in the last chapter of his Topica: not to dispute with the first person you meet, but only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to cherish truth, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong, should truth lie with him. From this it follows that scarcely one man in a hundred is worth your disputing with him. You may let the remainder say what they please, for every one is at liberty to be a fool

George Weinberg:
In your opinion why did Schopenhauer cared to write both the paragraph you are quoting and the various "mischievous" tricks of The Art of Controversy?

Doesn't that word "frankly" in your quotation from Orr immediately suggest to you that, in fact, he is not being frank at all?

I submit that the word "frankly" is almost always a signal of the use of one or more rhetorical trick in argument.

The preamble to Orr's Edge response to Dennet:-

Daniel Dennett seems to think that the author of any review he doesn't like is obliged to spend the rest of his days debating him— even if the review in question was of someone else's book, not his. The sort of extended exchange Dennett now seeks can grow unproductive — especially when the discussion devolves into ad hominem attack — and, given this, I'm less than enthusiastic about continuing it. I will, though, briefly address Dennett's main points here. And then that's it for me.

The "high-minded refusal to continue the argument to disguise the fact I'm losing" gambit. Rather inclines me to agree with your view of Orr.

potentilla:

I don't believe it's quite the "tell" you suggest, though only slightly different.

I've been sensitive to such usage, to include, "frankly," "quite honestly," "to tell you the plain truth," for a very, very long time. I think I was under 10 when someone drew my attention to the "deceitful-intention-awareness-potential" in such phrases (70 now) and, for at least a while, I thought that maybe I'd come into possession of a "secret decoder ring."

But it doesn't actually work to identify falsity--not by a long shot. If I were to make my best guess, I'd say that it may tip one off to utterance about which there has been some consideration of other-than-truthfulness. But that's not really saying a lot when it is understood how thoroughly nearly everyone has been immersed, since infancy, in honing and perfecting deceitful arts. I'd even venture an opinion that the most practiced never use such phrases, simply because of their potential to put the audience "on alert."

We're born liars--or, at least, almost constant liars from the time we perceive any potential advantage in manipulating those around us. "Body language" experts believe they have secret decoder rings, too, and some professionalize in entertaining TV audiences with analyses of specific conduct. Even here, though, penetration is more apparent than real; where they represent the behavior as relevatory, they themselves betray a certain deceitful attitude (the term body langauge is a more truthful description of what is, when all is said and done, after all, language--meant to communicate, rather than being beyond the subject's control). So, if they're experts, they already know this and are actually telling us "we can assume politicians are lying when their lips are moving--but you need my help to tell you whether their lips are moving or not."

A curious conclusion I've drawn from such consideration is, that not only is each of us a practiced and reasonably successful liar (at least those of us who do not have a reputation as liars), each of us is the most successful liar of whom he is aware; he knows those instances in which he's been successful (which are legion) and he cannot know of the instances in which others are successful (because the two conditions are mutually exclusive). Further, the very best liars (most successful, least detected) are those with sterling reputations for truthfulness; such reputation is achieved (in my opinion) by lying far less frequently, providing fewer opportunities for detection--what I'd describe as a judicious restriction of the practice to cases "when it's really important."

Kevembuangga,

My impression is that Schopenhauer wrote his book not with the intention that the tricks be used, but rather that they be detected when others use them. I think we was arguing for more honest discourse.

But almost everything I know about Schopenhauer is second-hand or worse, so that's mostly a guess.

No--you're right, George. At least, that's the clear intention imparted by the (English) translation I read in the link provided. (And if that's different from original sense--the translator's doing a job of his own.) As I remarked (above), the sardonic tone is reminiscent of Bierce's DEVIL'S DICTIONARY to an extent (to my ear) that I'd surmise Ambrose influenced by Schopenhauer. I'd've made a connection earlier (from bits and pieces of Bierce) but didn't know anything of Schopenhauer except the name. I suppose I oughtta get out more but it's a little late to start now.

Just after that paragraph, I googled and read the Wiki entry. Flat fucking amazing!--not a word of his humorous inclination. Not only reminds me of Bierce but Mark Twain (also of an age to have been influenced), too. Wouldn't be the first time a comedian used "borrowed" material; the American legend was usually more obvious (necessary to the audience) but occasionally turned his hand to similar stuff (letters to M. Paul Bourget, analysis of faux French translation of his own "Celebrated Jumping Frog..." story, etc.).

gene berman - I agree with what you say about lying, on the whole. But, on the limited evidence avaiable on Edge, I wouldn't judge Orr to be a very good liar. His attempted disengagement that I quote above is rather clumsy.

Maybe a good lair would never use the word "frankly"? Or maybe a really super-brilliant liar would be able to use it effectively as a sort of double-bluff?

I don't think Orr is in that league though.

(BTW, an exception to your claim in the first sentence of your last para is when we are "on the same side" as the liar (ie privy to their lies), because then we can know when they are successful. A previous boss of mine falls very neatly into your description of the very best liars.