Martin Lenz: Why adversarial criticism is antithetical to truth
Philosophical discussions,
whether in a professional setting or at the bar, frequently consist of calling
out mistakes in whatever has been proposed: ‘This is all very well, but …’ This
adversarial style is often celebrated as truth-conducive. Eliminating false
assumptions seems to leave us with truth in the marketplace of ideas. Although
this is a fairly pervasive practice (even I am practising it right now), I
doubt that it is a particularly good approach to philosophical discussions.
The
lack of progress in adversarial philosophical exchange might rest on a simple
but problematic division of labour: in professional settings such as talks,
seminars and papers, we standardly criticise others’, rather than
our own, views. At the same time, we clearly risk our reputation much more when
proposing an idea rather than criticising it. This systematically disadvantages
proponents of (new) ideas. Adversarial criticism
is commonly driven by a binary understanding of ideas. Claims are either true
or false; arguments are either valid or invalid. If this understanding is
correct, then the exclusion of false or invalid points does indeed seem to
leave us with true ideas. If this were the case, criticism would indeed be a
good way of responding to the proponent of an idea. But how well does this work
in practice?
The philosopher Catherine Hundleby at the University of Windsor in
Ontario analysed how argumentation is taught to students and
concluded that ‘argument repair’, in which the proponents of a position revise
their argument in response to criticism, is greatly neglected. Instead, what is
emphasised are quick tools for evaluating arguments by putting ‘fallacy labels’
onto them. This is less helpful than one might think because it’s purely
negative.Still, you might think
that if arguments or claims are defective, pointing out weaknesses will
eventually help. How then do proponents of ideas respond to criticism?... read more:
https://www.alternet.org/2020/01/professor-of-history-of-philosophy-explains-why-adversarial-criticism-is-antithetical-to-truth/
