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.
You and I appear to be on the same wavelength today.
ReplyDeleteI 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" -
ReplyDeletehttp://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.
Another disingenuous technique is to keep switching back and forth between different arguments, even if they don't hang together or address separate issues, hoping to find one that convinces people.
ReplyDeleteFor example,
Are you talking to people who think a social or technological change will be net positive?: "This will change everything, and it will make everything better and more advanced than ever."
Are you talking to people who are pointing out drawbacks?: "Things have always been this way, nothing has really changed."
Of course, they can't both be true, but that hasn't stopped this kind of argumentation from going on for decades.