Maria Popova quotes D.C. Dennett on how to argue:
1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
Intellectually, I think only the first step is important. It is analogous to Bryan Caplan’s ideological Turing test.
I was going to say that you forgot to fairly re-express Popova’s position before you disagreed with her other points being important. But then I realized that I would be making the same mistake by not fairly re-expressing your position before disagreeing with you! 🙂
Last night, we had a lesson partially taken from the gentleman’s “The Last Lecture” on how to apologize properly. I was pondering why it is so difficult. I think both of these have the same problem. The other side is always looking for any piece of leverage.
By “Intellectually important” do you mean for your own intellect? I think I can see why the other parts are important for the “opponent.” For example, how the global warming debate got off the rails from the get go is the alarmists exaggerate the problem to the point where agreement is not possible. If we had broken it into pieces rather than the in-group loyalty signaling from yesterday’s discussion we might not be working our 3rd decade of wasted effort.
#2 is a useful as a signal that you do not mean your criticism as a personal attack, and thus the target of your criticism is more likely to be open to what you have to say, rather than becoming defensive. #3 serves the same function, but seems to me it may come across as patronizing.
St Thomas’ Summa Thelogoiae is the most striking example of (1). He is unparalleled in expressing the positions and objections of his opponents in the most accurate and fairest manner, always choosing the strongest arguments and objections rather than the weakest.
When the interest is truth, not merely debate, you always want to answer your opponent’s best argument, not his worst. Truth isn’t about points.
Having seen Dennett’s comments on Darwinian evolution versus intelligent design, he seems to have given himself a waiver from these rules.
Perhaps I am just naturally irritable and easily offended, and so remember the places where this goes wrong more vividly. Yet I believe I do this quite naturally, but get mostly opportunistic attack in response. After a short exchange, I stop bothering.
That doesn’t often work either.