A specific thing people could do that I think would tremendously help the site culture, without at all limiting our ability to be critical when warranted, is just to preface critical comments with evidence that the critic has put in some work to ensure they’re understanding the original material.
Ideally, that would entail providing:
A quote of the statement they disagree with
A brief description of the context of the post and how the bit they’re criticizing relates
At least some engagement with the specific supporting arguments or evidence originally provided.
Engaging with the supporting arguments and evidence is essential.
This is a form of debate I think is productive because it engages the arguments and evidence offered by the other person:
“I think A because B”
“I think not-A because I think not-B because C,” or “I think not-A because I think C, which outweights B because D.”
This is a form of debate I think is unproductive because the second person doesn’t engage with the first person’s reasoning—only with their claim:
“I think A because B”
“I think not-A because C” (which doesn’t explain C’s relationship with B), or “I think not-A because I think C, which outweighs B” (which doesn’t explain why C outweighs B”.
In general, I think it’s up to each respondant to show engagement with the previous person. There’s a certain privilege of the prior speaker: if I say “A because B,” and you want to voice your disagreement, then you have to at least say “not-A because not-B because C.” You don’t just get to say “not-A because not-B.” That might be a little unfair, but it also gives me the onus to then say “I still think A because C, which outweighs B, because D.”
I think that a definitive feature of crappy Socratic interrogations of the kind Duncan’s describing here is the absence of this feature, and the presence of this feature defines the best conversations I’ve had in any environment.
A specific thing people could do that I think would tremendously help the site culture, without at all limiting our ability to be critical when warranted, is just to preface critical comments with evidence that the critic has put in some work to ensure they’re understanding the original material.
Ideally, that would entail providing:
A quote of the statement they disagree with
A brief description of the context of the post and how the bit they’re criticizing relates
At least some engagement with the specific supporting arguments or evidence originally provided.
Engaging with the supporting arguments and evidence is essential.
This is a form of debate I think is productive because it engages the arguments and evidence offered by the other person:
“I think A because B”
“I think not-A because I think not-B because C,” or “I think not-A because I think C, which outweights B because D.”
This is a form of debate I think is unproductive because the second person doesn’t engage with the first person’s reasoning—only with their claim:
“I think A because B”
“I think not-A because C” (which doesn’t explain C’s relationship with B), or “I think not-A because I think C, which outweighs B” (which doesn’t explain why C outweighs B”.
In general, I think it’s up to each respondant to show engagement with the previous person. There’s a certain privilege of the prior speaker: if I say “A because B,” and you want to voice your disagreement, then you have to at least say “not-A because not-B because C.” You don’t just get to say “not-A because not-B.” That might be a little unfair, but it also gives me the onus to then say “I still think A because C, which outweighs B, because D.”
I think that a definitive feature of crappy Socratic interrogations of the kind Duncan’s describing here is the absence of this feature, and the presence of this feature defines the best conversations I’ve had in any environment.