Thank you. Your representation of my argument has all the flaws you find, but look again to make sure it’s the right representation of my argument.
Ad hom attacks may be radically honest in the way that any other violence to sincere engagement is, but the radical honesty to admire admits one’s own potential for motivated reasoning in the same breath. I don’t see that humility from the authors.
I’m not concerned that they are primed to expect motivated disagreement, but that they are primed to expect only motivated disagreement; that no one who disagrees is capable of engaging sincerely; that there is no rational disagreement. It’s OK to think that. That’s what it means to be axiomatic. The rule is you’ve got to say so. And I’m certainly not alone in noting that the authors are very dismissive of failures to accept their axiom-in-argument’s-clothing.
It’s entirely possible I haven’t read enough outside the book, refs are welcome. If I am stuck in the labyrinth of emotional resistance to such brave truths, I don’t have to be reminded of that possibility. What will give me a chance at peeling the scales from my eyes is 1. engagement with the counterarguments in their strongest form assuming equally rational interlocutors, or 2. an invitation to just take that particular point as given and see where it leads.
> That’s different from failing to address the arguments in their strongest form. I think you are equating these two separate critiques.
I think not. You’ll find elsewhere on the site that the variations of Steelmanning, the Principle of Charity, and Assume Good Faith are all cited adjacently to each other. The quite reasonable and unremarkable epistemic standard I’m setting is the neighborhood of these ideas, and I’m surprised to see so little interest in it.
> Sometimes you can’t assume equally rational interlocutors, because your interlocutors are not equally rational, and that would be a false assumption.
And there is no interlocutor. It’s a book, with a wide audience that won’t talk back. A writer lacks full dossiers on their complete readership, and so usefully/incorrectly assumes an audience capable and invested in understanding. Otherwise why write? Having assembled such an audience to tell them there’s no reasonable disagreement with a key premise of the book just feels like a missed opportunity, and out of the spirit of like the whole enterprise.
> What is the strongest argument, in your view, that was not addressed?
In the interest of staying scoped, I’ll call it a subject for another thread post. As a summarizing statement, I’m coming away from this exchange at least as concerned that I’m engaging in a community that has rationalized itself into thinking that ad hominum attacks and dismissive assumptions of bad faith are how we arrive at shared truth. I would of course love to be wrong. Thank you for engaging to this point.