Most of the objectionable statements I encounter online are not flat out wrong—they are ambiguous. EY might say that there is a mismatch between denotation and connotation. It’s reasonable to respond to such statements with a polite request for clarification; for terms to be defined; for examples to be provided; etc.
Also, much of the time when people contradict me, they are not actually contradicting anything I have said—they are arguing against a position they have imagined or invented.
So my suggestion is that if you see something which you believe is wrong, first make sure you understand exactly what is being said.
Corollary: if you feel that something is wrong, and you need to speak out against it, be clear what you’re speaking out against. Maybe what the author was wrong about is simply how people would perceive their post. That’s a serious failure, assuming the goal was to communicate an idea, but it doesn’t invalidate the idea.
Yes, there’s a risk of permitting motte-and-bailey if you allow them to say “no, that’s not what I was talking about at all”. However, one such retreat does not constitute evidence that they will return to their motte and that the supposed bailey really isn’t their intended ground. Regardless of whether it’s a true misunderstanding of position or not, though, they have not refuted your counterpoint; that is an acknowledgement that you are right..
It costs you very little, but potentially informs everybody involved, to identify the position you’re arguing against. It’s worth doing.
Most of the objectionable statements I encounter online are not flat out wrong—they are ambiguous. EY might say that there is a mismatch between denotation and connotation. It’s reasonable to respond to such statements with a polite request for clarification; for terms to be defined; for examples to be provided; etc.
Also, much of the time when people contradict me, they are not actually contradicting anything I have said—they are arguing against a position they have imagined or invented.
So my suggestion is that if you see something which you believe is wrong, first make sure you understand exactly what is being said.
Corollary: if you feel that something is wrong, and you need to speak out against it, be clear what you’re speaking out against. Maybe what the author was wrong about is simply how people would perceive their post. That’s a serious failure, assuming the goal was to communicate an idea, but it doesn’t invalidate the idea.
Yes, there’s a risk of permitting motte-and-bailey if you allow them to say “no, that’s not what I was talking about at all”. However, one such retreat does not constitute evidence that they will return to their motte and that the supposed bailey really isn’t their intended ground. Regardless of whether it’s a true misunderstanding of position or not, though, they have not refuted your counterpoint; that is an acknowledgement that you are right..
It costs you very little, but potentially informs everybody involved, to identify the position you’re arguing against. It’s worth doing.