I’m most sympathetic to this when it looks like the explanation is at the level of analysis which explains that fixing the problem is impossible, or practically impossible, or the provided cost-benefits analysis is sufficient to demonstrate why fixing it as unrealistic. The best common example is when it’s an economic issue, when one interlocutor is more economically literate than the other, and both are talking in approximately good faith.
Alice: I can’t believe the price of groceries are up again! I bet it’s because of the greedy CEOs in charge of Berkley Bowl!
Bob: That sucks. But I think it’s implausible that changes in the price of groceries are substantially tied to the greed of CEOs, because we should expect CEO greed to be a constant. You can’t use a constant to explain a sudden change!
Alice: Oh I get it now. But do you have an actual explanation for why the prices are up?
Bob A: No, sorry. But in my experience price changes aren’t something we can do much about, and aren’t something that’s responsive to pushback.
Bob B: Yes, I think it’s because of [specific explanation involving the Iran war and fuel prices]
__
In contrast, I’m less sympathetic to these explanations when, if you follow the logic, it doesn’t actually say someone isn’t locally responsible. Or when “this is hard” explanations only say why it’s hard for a specific mechanism rather than a general class of solutions.
I’m also more sympathetic to this when Bob’s actually right, though of course that’s challenging as a norm.
I’m most sympathetic to this when it looks like the explanation is at the level of analysis which explains that fixing the problem is impossible, or practically impossible, or the provided cost-benefits analysis is sufficient to demonstrate why fixing it as unrealistic. The best common example is when it’s an economic issue, when one interlocutor is more economically literate than the other, and both are talking in approximately good faith.
Alice: I can’t believe the price of groceries are up again! I bet it’s because of the greedy CEOs in charge of Berkley Bowl!
Bob: That sucks. But I think it’s implausible that changes in the price of groceries are substantially tied to the greed of CEOs, because we should expect CEO greed to be a constant. You can’t use a constant to explain a sudden change!
Alice: Oh I get it now. But do you have an actual explanation for why the prices are up?
Bob A: No, sorry. But in my experience price changes aren’t something we can do much about, and aren’t something that’s responsive to pushback.
Bob B: Yes, I think it’s because of [specific explanation involving the Iran war and fuel prices]
__
In contrast, I’m less sympathetic to these explanations when, if you follow the logic, it doesn’t actually say someone isn’t locally responsible. Or when “this is hard” explanations only say why it’s hard for a specific mechanism rather than a general class of solutions.
I’m also more sympathetic to this when Bob’s actually right, though of course that’s challenging as a norm.