Hell hath no fury like someone accused of dishonest argument - when they actually are arguing dishonestly!
The self-righteous indignation at what seems a false accusation derives from the fact they are not consciously trying to deceive (i.e. to "lie") - the conscience is clear on that point!
But this depends on the assumption that intentional lying is the only dishonest form of argument.
However; although deliberate deception is very common indeed, and indeed compulsory in managerial positions of bureaucracies - it is not the only form of dishonest argument.
One dishonesty in argument that I have encountered many times - especially over the past three decades - is people who will not address the point at issue, but persist in changing the subject to something else.
Instead of winning an argument against what I am saying, the others refuse to engage in my argument and instead discuss... something else.
There may be many reasons for this - the others may not understand my argument, they may regard it as trivial; but the dishonesty is that
1. they will not engage with it, and
2. they dishonestly refuse to admit that they are not-engaging.
The dishonesty is in asserting that they are arguing about the same thing as me, when they are not doing so!
This is extremely common.
I encounter it a lot online, I used to encounter it frequently in my professional life.
I have encountered it whenever my arguments became public and got into the professional literature and mainstream media...
The Big Problem then, was that the journalists refused to describe, engage-in or discuss what it was that I was actually saying; and instead used it as a hook upon-which to hang a pre-defined agenda that they did wanted to promote.
This relates to a further dishonesty of argument; which is:
The pretence that one is interested in discovering truth by argument; when one is actually wanting to show that the other person is wrong!
For instance; the other party may want to prove me wrong for many reasons, and some of these reasons may be good! - but the point at issue here is that they are arguing dishonestly.
They are not trying to refute my argument, because that would require engagement wit hwhat I actually have said.
Indeed, often they don't even know what I am actually saying!
They are arguing instead to demonstrate my wrongness - and that, therefore, I can and should be ignored.
There is a world of difference; and to pretend one while doing the other - just is dishonest.
2 comments:
You and I appear to be on the same wavelength today.
I sense where this post has come from. Unfortunately, I don't have any meaningful "solution" to offer. I suspect that any accusation of dishonesty in argument would merely be deflected by more dishonesty, thereby compounding the matter.
All I can say is that no longer directly engage with this sort of dishonest argument whenever I detect it. Doesn't seem to be much point it, as it spiritually harmful for all involved.
If anything, I have learned to become more aware of this sort of dishonesty in my own arguments and avoid it as best as I can. And if I can't avoid it -- for whatever reason -- then to at least recognize it, try to uncover/understand why I employed it, and repent it whenever it does occur.
@Frank - For me, this goes back to 1994 onwards in relation to the discussions about "Evidence Based Medicine" -
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2009/08/zombie-science-of-evidence-based.html
I came across it a lot in dealing with management at the university - whenever I wanted to talk about real science; they would only talk about current bureaucratic expediency.
Then there was my first media firestorm in 2008; when a story supposedly about what I had written, appeared all over the world (including India) for a few days, and got into the Trades Union national conference a couple of weeks later and a well known book by an egregious Labour leftist. The Daily Mail went so far as to invent a quote from me, printed in quotation marks, that I had never said and with which I did not agree.
https://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.com/search?q=times+higher
The same happened a couple of years later but in the academic media with the Medical Hypotheses Affair (that led to me being sacked from the editorship) -
http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2010/05/medical-hypotheses-affair-times-higher.html
Nowadays, as you correctly infer, it is usually about me wanting to talk about ultimate convictions and metaphysics in relation to Christianity; while most others want to talk about stuff like here-and-now this-worldly expediency, their feelings etc.
Post a Comment