How to confess your intellectual impotence
"Have you heard?- 'Only a fool would deny that climate change is leading to disaster.'
- 'Only a heartless beast would support capitalism.'
- 'Only a racist would oppose Maori co-governance.'
- 'Only a philistine could fail to see the profundity of modern art.'
- 'Only an idiot would vote for/oppose Trump.'
Such assertions rarely are made so bluntly or forthrightly. More often they are insinuated ('Really? You don’t get modern art?') or conveyed via facial expressions or other nonverbal means (a grimace, a glare, a wide-eyed stare). But you no doubt have heard such claims and encountered such expressions in one form or another. And you likely have seen people back down or change their positions in response.
"Ayn Rand observed such behaviour repeatedly ... [and saw] a pattern: In each case, someone was attempting to substitute psychological pressure for rational argument. She termed this fallacy 'The Argument from Intimidation.' ... '[It] bears a certain resemblance to the fallacy ad hominem.' Whereas ad hominem 'consists of attempting to refute an argument by impeaching the character of its proponent'—for example, 'Candidate X is immoral, therefore his argument is false'—the argument from intimidation
"consists of threatening to impeach an opponent’s character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: 'Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X’s argument is false.'
"In the first case, Candidate X’s immorality (real or invented) is offered as proof of the falsehood of his argument. In the second case, the falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality. . . .
"The pattern is always: 'Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.' ....
"People who engage in the argument from intimidation do so because, as Rand put it, 'they have no arguments, no evidence, no proof, no reason, no ground to stand on.' Their use of this method 'is a confession of intellectual impotence.'
"How then should people of reason deal with those who engage in such non-argument arguments? If we choose to address them at all (and there’s no 'duty' to do so), we should demand that they provide rational arguments in support of their claims. If they refuse, then we should name the fallacy they’ve committed and inform them that their confession is duly noted. This helps to keep intellectual discourse civil."
~ Craig Biddle, from his post 'The Argument from Intimidation: A Confession of Intellectual Impotence,' quoting from Ayn Rand's essay 'The Argument from Intimidation' [emphasis added; examples improved]
1 comment:
And while it's true that both Left and Right can and do indulge in this fallacy I think it's fair to suggest that the Left are an order of magnitude worse nowadays in employing it, to judge by what I see in social media, MSM and political "arguments" and debating chambers, including those in all too much of academia - as well as the fact that all to much modern leftism derives from the theories of post-modernism and assholes like Marcuse.
The intolerance of the Left
They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.
Moreover, the restoration of freedom of thought may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational institutions which, by their very methods and concepts, serve to enclose the mind within the established universe of discourse and behavior..
LeninThink and the Modern Left:
In Lenin’s view, a true revolutionary did not establish the correctness of his beliefs by appealing to evidence or logic, as if there were some standards of truthfulness above social classes. Rather, one engaged in “blackening an opponent’s mug so well it takes him ages to get it clean again.” Nikolay Valentinov, a Bolshevik who knew Lenin well before becoming disillusioned, reports him saying: “There is only one answer to revisionism: smash its face in!”
When Mensheviks objected to Lenin’s personal attacks, he replied frankly that his purpose was not to convince but to destroy his opponent. In work after work, Lenin does not offer arguments refuting other Social Democrats but brands them as “renegades” from Marxism. Marxists who disagreed with his naïve epistemology were “philosophic scum.” Object to his brutality and your arguments are “moralizing vomit.”
Post a Comment