BS: Logical Rudeness

Subject: BS:Rudeness-courtesy in discussions
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 23 Dec 13 - 07:56 PM

There does not seem to be much "up" here now. So, I share a link to fill in spare "seasonal" mudcat moments. It is a bit of a heavy read - but still somewhat interesting (and possibly even stimulating? It may even stir up a discussion? But, no loss if it does not. Feel free to do, whatever.

""For the canons of logical etiquette we use without reflection, those we urge falsely in the name of logic itself, and those that we tolerate in our comrades and resent in our critics, create the ethics of argument which governs discussion.""


What is rudeness?

Subject: RE: BS: Logical Rudeness
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Dec 13 - 10:09 PM

Wow... heavy reading indeed! A proper reply to the article as a whole would require very careful phrasing almost as tedious complex as the article itself. I will say only (right now) that many who wish to be 'rude', as Dr. Grobian, do not even accept that the principles of clear and precise logic even apply to themselves. One fascinating thing about us humans is the ability to simply refuse to 'agree' to the details of logical principles about their own analysis and interpretation of issues.

   It is fairly easy.. in the samples provided... to identify what many CALL rudeness, but the Dr. Grobians of the world will assert that 'telling it like it is' cannot be 'really' rude.

I will have to read a LOT more and longer to sort out the sub-plots of the article.

Subject: RE: BS: Logical Rudeness
From: Phil Cooper
Date: 23 Dec 13 - 11:05 PM

Interesting. But I think of the phrase, think about the impact of what you're going to say, before you say it: then, don't say it. Could save everyone a world of hurt.

Subject: RE: BS: Logical Rudeness
From: Amos
Date: 24 Dec 13 - 12:15 AM

I am repeatedly gobsmacked by the complexity with which some people make routine dalliance.

Subject: RE: BS: Logical Rudeness
From: Jack Campin
Date: 24 Dec 13 - 05:45 AM

Suber is concerned about how to conduct a dialogue with people who have fixed belief systems differing from your own. Reasonable ideas there when the other belief system is genuinely constructed on a basis of principle (what you might think of as batty principles, but principles regardless). He is probably thinking of sincere religious fundamentalists. Fair enough.

I don't see how that applies to someone like Songwronger, where the professed beliefs aren't generated by internal logic - instead they are selected on a basis of whatever stirs up hatred most effectively against a selected group of targets. For that sort of dialogue, evaluating the bizarre assertions on the basis of what sort of person is making them is the only response that makes sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Logical Rudeness
From: G-Force
Date: 24 Dec 13 - 07:50 AM

For that sort of dialogue, evaluating the bizarre assertions on the basis of what sort of person is making them is the only response that makes sense.
But that would be an example of the 'ad hominem' fallacy, effectively conceding the argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Logical Rudeness
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Dec 13 - 11:01 AM

"...people who have fixed belief systems differing from your own."

That reads like an assumption that everyone HAS a "fixed belief system". In a way, this is close to how things work..... but, *if* one system's basic principle is that "ALL assertions are subject to enquiry and testing...etc.(many implied etceteras)" while another's is that "All assertions may be altered and revised as necessary (de facto rationalization) in order to continue a subjective criticism of "a selected group of targets", *then* it is obvious that 'belief systems'...even fixed ones... differ in kind in basic ways.

(re-reading my own turgid prose and wondering if I even managed to say to my own satisfaction what I was trying to get at.)

I guess my point is that, when carefully dissected, "logical rudeness" usually involves an underlying, implicit idea that one's own prejudices are somehow excluded from standard logical critique.
(I just remembered a line from Nietzsche's "Thus Spake Zarathustra" where an old woman says: "Of course it was a just war, my son died in it!".)

There is a concept in Phenomenology about the difficulty of objectively looking at and reflecting on one's own subjective consciousness. "Am I really being fair, honest & reasonable?"... it so much easier not to try, and the article seems to show how that can be exemplified.

This is not an easy topic to do justice to.