From time to time it’s necessary to give some of our commenters a remedial course in the art of argumentation. For example:
1.Some commentators can’t grasp the nature of an internal critique. An internal critique is where I argue with an opponent or opposing position on his own grounds. I play by his rules for the sake of argument. I apply his standard to his own position.
For some odd reason, there are always a certain number of commenters who think that when you do this, an adequate response is to point out that you’re not being consistent. That you’re guilty of the very same thing. Perhaps this is related to the popular obsession with hypocrisy.
But that’s irrelevant to an internal critique. I don’t have to be consistent with your standard. The fact that you’re inconsistent with your standard doesn’t mean that I have to be consistent with your standard. I only have to be consistent with my standard. If your standard isn’t my standard, then there’s no reason for me to be consistent with your standard. Since I don’t agree with your yardstick, I don’t need to measure up to your yardstick. If you come up short, that’s a problem for you. If I come up short, that’s not a problem for me.
The tu quoque response is only irrelevant if both sides are making comparable claims.
2.Some commenters also forget that poking holes in my boat doesn’t plug the leaks in your own boat. There’s nothing wrong with trying to poke holes in your opponent’s position. But that’s no substitute for defending your own position. While you busy yourself by poking holes in my boat, your own boat is taking on water.
If I point out that Catholicism is a sinking ship, and your only response is to point out that Protestantism is sinking fast as well, then even if your point was well taken, that won’t save you from the sharks.
Now, at Triablogue, we operate at all levels. We argue against your position, and we also respond to your counterarguments. We present positive arguments for our own position, and we respond to your objections.
We don’t necessarily do everything at once, and we don’t necessarily repeat everything we’ve said in the past when a novice pops up. But at one time or another, we’ve covered all our bases.
Genuine thanks for the lesson on argumentation Steve.
ReplyDeleteVery good advice for arguing ones side. It is very true that this happens when debating someone on that kind of subject.
ReplyDeleteYour site has a lot of useful information.
-Jeremy
Concise and well said.
ReplyDeleteGood luck getting the Catholics to get it, though.
"For some odd reason, there are always a certain number of commenters who think that when you to this"
ReplyDeleteWhen I "to" this? Is this something I "to."
How do I know that I am "toing" it correctly?
You know, for a blog post meant to insult the intelligence of Catholics you would think to have proof read it more carefully before posting. I would avoid "toing" that mistake again.
Not to mention, what in the world are "commenters?" You are just so far advanced intellectually!
ReplyDeleteWe can only hope Alexander Greco brings this depth of argumentation and erudition when he has time to answer my post.
ReplyDeleteWhy he thought it was meant to insult Romanists is beyond me, unless it's a Freudian slip...
ALEXANDER GRECO SAID:
ReplyDelete"You know, for a blog post meant to insult the intelligence of Catholics you would think to have proof read it more carefully before posting."
Do you apply the same standard to Art Sippo (see below)?
***********************
Comments
Any comments you would like to make?
Posted by Alexander Greco at 7:16 PM
Arthur C. Sippo MD, MPH said...
Greg:
This is Art Sippo. Thank you for your invitation to join the discussion. I think that the Catholic in there is doing fine. I try not to go to Prot websites but to stick to my own blog and those Cathoic [sic] sites that are loyal to the Magisterium.
I have seeral [sic] irons in the fir [sic] right now and I realy [sic] ca't [sic] take the time to do anything more at the moment.
I will keep you and the folks in this discssion [sic] in my prayers.
Art
August 4, 2008 7:02 PM
http://lexnaturalislexaeterna.blogspot.com/2008/04/comments.html?showComment=1217901720000#c2214405310075842624
This is Art Sippo. Thank you for your invitation to join the discussion.
ReplyDeleteNow we see that Greco runs to Sippo while Bellisario runs to Sungenis.
I suppose if I joined Holy Mother Church I could have access to the fallible arguments of pop-Catholic apologists and not be left to the "anarchy" of Protestantism private judgment?
to the "anarchy" of Protestantism private judgment?
ReplyDeleteOh dear, now I'll be corrected on my grammar.
That should say "Protestant".
Nothing to worry about, Carrie. Before Greco presumes to correct you, he will have to correct his own error in grammatical number agreement:
ReplyDelete"that is, if a Catholic asks another Catholic their opinion."
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2008/07/my-condolences-for-champion-of.html?showComment=1215053580000#c8579284557801919469
Assuming he's not referring to transgender Catholic apologists.
Since none of you have a clue as to the context of my correspondence with Dr. Sippo, allow me to enlighten your ignorance. Dr. Sippo is a medical doctor. At the time I was in a discussion with Mr. Bridges and Turretinfan on contraception. As a medical doctor, I wanted to see if he had anything substantial to say based on his medical knowledge. Obviously he is not an authority on the topic of contraception. Someone such as Dr. Janet Smith would have been better. I really do not see your point by bringing it up other than the fact that you are grasping at straws.
ReplyDeleteSteve, Shakespeare and Dickens did the same thing, so I guess I am in good company. You could also blame the liberal ideologues at my alma mater for beating any sexist tendencies from my writings. :)
ReplyDeleteALEXANDER GRECO SAID:
ReplyDelete"I really do not see your point by bringing it up other than the fact that you are grasping at straws."
The reason I brought it up is self-explanatory in the context of your original remark. Try to keep track of your own reasoning, pitiful as that may be.
Steve: The reason I brought it up is self-explanatory in the context of your original remark. Try to keep track of your own reasoning, pitiful as that may be.
ReplyDeleteMe: The context of my original remark was that if you are going to outright attack the intelligence of Catholics and our reasoning abilities, try to proof-read your comments first. It simply looked absurd.
If you are going to label my reasoning as being pitiful, I would think that it would be incumbent upon you to provide some level of proof. As it is, I can point to the fact that I received an A in deductive logic. So my reasoning skills could not truely be "pitiful." You write as if you have some personal ax to grind. I'm sorry you feel this way.
ALEXANDER GRECO SAID:
ReplyDelete"If you are going to label my reasoning as being pitiful, I would think that it would be incumbent upon you to provide some level of proof."
My you're dense. I took your criticism and reapplied it to Sippo. If it's true for me, it's true for him. If not for him, then not for me.
If you find it that difficult to connect the dots, you do the reputation of your cause no favors.
Steve: My you're dense. I took your criticism and reapplied it to Sippo. If it's true for me, it's true for him. If not for him, then not for me.
ReplyDeleteIf you find it that difficult to connect the dots, you do the reputation of your cause no favors.
Me: Your hostility reminds me of a rabid animal trapped in a corner. Do you feel that you need to be hostile because you cannot argue on merits alone? It is not so much what people say, but why they say it.
Your remarks fail to approach the issue because Dr. Sippo was making the comment that he didn't feel the need to join in on the conversation. This is entirely irrelevant to the point which you are ridiculously straining to make. If he were to make a blog post describing how Protestants err in their understanding of proper argumentation, and set himself as intellectually superior to all Protestants, yet in that very post he made the same grammatical errors, then I would tease him on that as well.
By the way, an all knowing sage would have known of these comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19795707&postID=40549562682919539
Your hostility reminds me of a rabid animal trapped in a corner.
ReplyDeleteYou apparently haven't read any Sippo recently.
Rhology: You apparently haven't read any Sippo recently.
ReplyDeleteMe: I can imagine. Do I really need to? If you frequent his writings, just let me know if anything changes.
If you haven't checked his blog, here is the essence of his stuff, boiled down even more simply.
ReplyDeleteYea, I've read that stuff.
ReplyDelete