July 01, 2015 at 03:13PM [via Facebook]
This is mostly just a note for my own purposes. But when arguing about controversial views, one of the reasons that putting arguments into standard form is useful, and also asking standard philosophical tools to criticize the argument (so if you reject the conclusion, is this valid or invalid? if valid, which premise or premises do you reject? etc.), is that it is actually an extremely useful way to figure out whether somebody is or is not ready, willing and able to engage seriously with you in a logical argument.
If you give someone a list of say premises (1)-(5), sometimes people will look at that list and try to narrow it down to one or two that they really sharply disagree with, will try to keep to the most charitable interpretation they can devise for the others, may even concede some premises that they don’t really agree with for the sake of argument, in order to focus on the deeper or more interesting disagreement. Others will take a look at your list and run through to find the first, easiest means to shoot down each and every one of them, even premises that they really have no strong incentive to reject other than the fact that their opponent has put them forward.
The one approach is treating argument as an intellectual puzzle to be solved, even at the cost of some effort. The other is treating it as an attack to be fended off, with the fewest casualties on your side and if possible on every front. When I see this kind of shotgun blast reply, it is almost always a sign that what is about to go forward is a verbal fight, not a conversation or a good-faith logical engagement.
Anticopyright.