Sadly, we don’t live in a world where all hypotheticals are actually neutral excercises in deductive logic. In real debates it’s quite common to see people constructing hypotheticals that implicitly assume their position on some issue is the correct one. If you accept one of these hypotheticals you’ve already lost the argument, regardless of the actual merits of the case. Thus, when you find yourself confronted with a hypothetical based on an incoherent ontology, corrupt definitions, or other examples of confused or dishonest thinking often the only viable response is to challenge the validity of the hypothetical itself.
In other words, ‘don’t fight the hypothetical’ is generally equivalent to ‘let your opponent define the terms of the debate however he pleases’ - rarely good advice, especially outside of a classroom setting.
I don’t think I disagree. Fighting the hypo is the equivalent of changing the subject. Sometimes, that’s a good idea. I certainly endorse dodging loaded questions. Even better is calling people on the loaded question, if you are brave enough and think it will help. (Unfortunately, that’s usually a question of relative status, not relative rationality—but trying can still sometimes raise the sanity line).
My point was only that people sometimes get confused about what is and what isn’t staying on topic.
Is there a way to tell the difference between helpful hypotheticals that illustrate confusing topics in stark terms (like Newcomb’s Dilemma) and malicious ones that try and frame a political argument for rhetorical purposes (I can think of some examples, I’m sure you can as well, but let’s try to avoid particulars)?
You can find multiple, independent considerations to support almost any course of action. The warning sign is when you don’t find points against a course of action. There are almost always multiple points both for and against any course of action you may be considering.
If the hypothetical is structured so as to eliminate most courses of action, it has probably been purposely framed that way. Hypotheticals are intended to illuminate potential choices, if all but one choice has been eliminated, it is a biased alternative (loaded question).
Note that this is one reason I like considering fiction in ethical (and political theory, which is basically ethics writ large) reasoning—the scenarios are much simpler and more explicit than real world ones, but richer and less likely to be biased pbilosophically than scenarios designed for that purpose.
Sadly, we don’t live in a world where all hypotheticals are actually neutral excercises in deductive logic. In real debates it’s quite common to see people constructing hypotheticals that implicitly assume their position on some issue is the correct one. If you accept one of these hypotheticals you’ve already lost the argument, regardless of the actual merits of the case.
I’m not sure exactly what you have in mind, but I think in that situation the best response to be explicit about what’s going on.
e.g. “I would definitely choose Option A as I think that generally speaking and all things being equal, it’s better not to torture puppy dogs. But so what? What does that have to do with my original point?”
Thus, when you find yourself confronted with a hypothetical based on an incoherent ontology, corrupt definitions, or other examples of confused or dishonest thinking often the only viable response is to challenge the validity of the hypothetical itself.
I generally just ironman their flawed hypothetical and carry on. Sometimes it turns out that the flaws are easily fixed and doing so does not invalidate their original point.
Sadly, we don’t live in a world where all hypotheticals are actually neutral excercises in deductive logic. In real debates it’s quite common to see people constructing hypotheticals that implicitly assume their position on some issue is the correct one. If you accept one of these hypotheticals you’ve already lost the argument, regardless of the actual merits of the case. Thus, when you find yourself confronted with a hypothetical based on an incoherent ontology, corrupt definitions, or other examples of confused or dishonest thinking often the only viable response is to challenge the validity of the hypothetical itself.
In other words, ‘don’t fight the hypothetical’ is generally equivalent to ‘let your opponent define the terms of the debate however he pleases’ - rarely good advice, especially outside of a classroom setting.
I don’t think I disagree. Fighting the hypo is the equivalent of changing the subject. Sometimes, that’s a good idea. I certainly endorse dodging loaded questions. Even better is calling people on the loaded question, if you are brave enough and think it will help. (Unfortunately, that’s usually a question of relative status, not relative rationality—but trying can still sometimes raise the sanity line).
My point was only that people sometimes get confused about what is and what isn’t staying on topic.
Is there a way to tell the difference between helpful hypotheticals that illustrate confusing topics in stark terms (like Newcomb’s Dilemma) and malicious ones that try and frame a political argument for rhetorical purposes (I can think of some examples, I’m sure you can as well, but let’s try to avoid particulars)?
As I pointed out on the thread about noticing when you’re rationalizing
If the hypothetical is structured so as to eliminate most courses of action, it has probably been purposely framed that way. Hypotheticals are intended to illuminate potential choices, if all but one choice has been eliminated, it is a biased alternative (loaded question).
Note that this is one reason I like considering fiction in ethical (and political theory, which is basically ethics writ large) reasoning—the scenarios are much simpler and more explicit than real world ones, but richer and less likely to be biased pbilosophically than scenarios designed for that purpose.
I’m not sure exactly what you have in mind, but I think in that situation the best response to be explicit about what’s going on.
e.g. “I would definitely choose Option A as I think that generally speaking and all things being equal, it’s better not to torture puppy dogs. But so what? What does that have to do with my original point?”
I generally just ironman their flawed hypothetical and carry on. Sometimes it turns out that the flaws are easily fixed and doing so does not invalidate their original point.