August 26, 2015
- You are not the only person in your movement / political party / other political/politicized group. If someone says “group A does/says/believes/etc…,” just because you personally do not do/say/believe/etc… does not mean that that statement is not true of the group as a whole. You cannot claim to be speaking for your group if what you’re saying goes against the widely held beliefs of that group. If it is the case that you differ from your group in this way, it is possible that you have found a point of compromise with the “other side,” and rather than righteously defending your position, you might use this connection to actually get some work done. Likewise, when you encounter another person who seems to hold views that are different than those of the majority their group, do not use that person’s position to argue against the rest of the group. This is ESPECIALLY TRUE for PUNDITS and POLITICIANS, people who frequently claim to represent “a majority of Americans/Israelis/Conservatives/Liberals/etc.” (statements which already invalidated by their use of meaningless words and/or their generalization of an entire populace’s point of view). The burden of proof is on them to show that they truly represent the people they claim to represent, and not just a vocal minority.
- Relatedly, extremism on one side of an issue neither negates nor justifies extremism on the other side of an issue. “Well, group A does this to group B” is not an acceptable counter argument to “Group B does this to group A.” Because we’re not in kindergarten anymore, and no one cares who started it.
- If your argument arises from a skewed or entirely inaccurate interpretation of the someone else’s statement(s), then it is not a valid argument. This is basic logic. If Person A says statement 1, and you quote them and then disprove statement 2, you have not disproven statement 1 just because you quoted it. If you’re trying to prove your own position to be correct, you want to defeat the strongest version of the opposing position. Therefore, it is in fact to your benefit (if you’re truly invested in your position and not just in winning a debate with flashy wordplay or catchy slogans) to interpret the person’s/group’s statements as generously as possible.
- The numbers do not lie, but people lie with numbers. Citing a study that has been widely debunked (for example, the study most commonly cited by anti-vaccinators) does not lend credence to your argument. Using statistics outside of the context in which they were produced does not lend credence to your argument. Again, it is in your best interest, if you truly believe in your position, to make sure, to the best of your abilities, that the information you use to support your argument is accurate, relevant, and applicable. Make sure, to the best of your abilities, that any studies you cite were published in a peer-reviewed journal and conform to basic standards (large sample size, control data, etc.). If any of these is not the case, either find another study, or present this study as merely a point of interest, meriting further examination, not a piece of solid evidence. Do not take statistics from one context and apply them to a different context (e.g. 75% of people get stomach cramps when eating meat [false context] . . . after they’ve been fasting for a week and they eat a whole sandwich in two seconds [real context].)
- You can agree with someone’s position without agreeing with their argument (e.g. you reached the same conclusion but with different reasoning), and you can agree with someone’s argument without agreeing with their position (e.g. you can follow the same reasoning to reach a different conclusion). You can even agree with someone’s argument and position but disagree with them morally (e.g. their reason for making that argument and reaching that conclusion makes you kind of queasy, and you’re pretty sure they’re secretly eugenicists.) Incidentally, when we have a truly democratic, nonpartisan system, you can be much more flexible should any of these conditions arise.
- Invalidating someone’s argument does not mean that you have invalidated their position. However, if someone invalidates your strongest argument, then that should prove to your satisfaction that, lacking further evidence, they are correct. Likewise, if you invalidate someone else’s strongest argument, than you can be satisfied in the knowledge that you are likely correct, until you encounter a stronger argument. We can never truly know anything, but you gotta start somewhere.
Certain of Eventual Failure 