Not at all. If you have many arguments, it is useful to reduce the number of them that are invalid and increase the number that are valid.
Why did you assume that “he’s mostly on the right side on this one” meant that he has one “almost correct” argument, rather than meaning that most of his arguments are sound?
Because I know that most of his arguments are not sound, and I tend to assume that the people I’m speaking with are familiar with basic realities of the topic. So that interpretation is ruled out.
Why did you assume that thomblake would know (i) that Searle’s arguments are mostly not sound, but not (ii) that an argument either meets the standards of correctness, or it doesn’t? Certainly both (i) and (ii) count as basic realities for you.
Because 1) thomblake is usually pretty sharp, 2) I know he’s very interested in philosophy generally, and 3) Searle is well-known and has been taken down more often than I care to remember.
That addresses (i).
As for (ii), people almost always ignore that point, and frequently try to gloss over or deny it in arguments. It’s warm and fuzzy to “look for the good” in positions and it’s a common strategy to wear down resistance in opponents by ‘acknowledging their claims to be partly valid’ even when they aren’t.
His studies have taught thomblake well, but he is not a rationalist yet.
And yet, thomblake’s reply makes it clear that you would have been more correct to assume that thomblake would know (ii) but not (i). Interesting. ETA: Or not.
I pretty much agree with Annoyance’s response. I’ve argued about Searle with him before, which I think is evidence for (i), and I’ve disputed the relevance of (ii).
Why did you assume that “he’s mostly on the right side on this one” meant that he has one “almost correct” argument, rather than meaning that most of his arguments are sound?
Because I know that most of his arguments are not sound, and I tend to assume that the people I’m speaking with are familiar with basic realities of the topic. So that interpretation is ruled out.
Why did you assume that thomblake would know (i) that Searle’s arguments are mostly not sound, but not (ii) that an argument either meets the standards of correctness, or it doesn’t? Certainly both (i) and (ii) count as basic realities for you.
Because 1) thomblake is usually pretty sharp, 2) I know he’s very interested in philosophy generally, and 3) Searle is well-known and has been taken down more often than I care to remember.
That addresses (i).
As for (ii), people almost always ignore that point, and frequently try to gloss over or deny it in arguments. It’s warm and fuzzy to “look for the good” in positions and it’s a common strategy to wear down resistance in opponents by ‘acknowledging their claims to be partly valid’ even when they aren’t.
His studies have taught thomblake well, but he is not a rationalist yet.
And yet, thomblake’s reply makes it clear that you would have been more correct to assume that thomblake would know (ii) but not (i). Interesting. ETA: Or not.
It’s like theism. It’s obviously wrong, but most people either support it or don’t realize it’s obviously wrong.
Possibly my reaction was not perfectly calibrated for thomblake, but it works pretty well generally.
Cyan,
I pretty much agree with Annoyance’s response. I’ve argued about Searle with him before, which I think is evidence for (i), and I’ve disputed the relevance of (ii).
And it is true, I’m an irrationalist.
Huh. Once again I am schooled in the typical mind fallacy.