Some people like to argue about arguing, others not so much
The New York Times blogger Stanley Fish wrote an endless post explaining the purpose of his inflammatory Think Again blog. He says that the purpose of it is to analyze the arguments but not make them.
I am analyzing arguments rather than making them; or, to be more precise, I am making arguments about arguments, especially ones I find incoherent or insufficiently examined.
He tries to take a completely neutral stance on the issues behind the arguments he analyzes. Instead, his goal is to point out the failings or strengths of opinions that interest him. Even if only a fraction of readers actually read his blog for the arguments, that’s still a substantial amount of people. (This particular post that I write about got over 300 comments.)
The most respected newspapers, even before they were tainted with the self-imposed scandalous errors to come, believed that pure objectivity is unattainable; that although someone can always push to try not to take a side or preference, achieving that is impossible. Striving to be objective is reasonable, but not gaining it. Fish ignores this. He says
I am agnostic on those issues and interested only in the way they are playing out in our present cultural moment. When, for example, I wrote three columns criticizing the atheist tracts written by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, I was motivated not by a belief in God — which I may or may not have, you’ll never know — but by what I took to be sloppy, schoolboy reasoning that was passing itself off as wisdom.
But what’s the point? Why argue just for the hell of the argument? A number of people (including our very own Ben/JadedHack) consider this recreation. It’s a weird sensation, argument is. After I argue, win or lose, I always have this sort of adrenaline rush. I don’t like it, some people do. But Fish isn’t catering to only these bicker junkies, albeit unintentionally. He’s touching topics that passionately inflame people.
Now that I think about it, maybe the purpose of this particular post is to deter readers who actually think Fish has a preference in the issues he’s critiquing. They’re right though. There’s no real way in avoiding the creation of an opinion when analyzing another opinion…or if there is, it’s not unavoidable. Fish’s preference has to become a factor sometimes. Is it really possible to always denounce any stance because of the way the argument is presented rather than the depth of the facts for one side or the ridiculousness of the proposal? More importantly, is it even worthwhile to argue about arguing? Perhaps as a way of keeping all arguments sharp. That seems like too massive a task for one blog.
I think that for the reasons you mention, it is ultimately impossible to critique an argument without injecting your own opinion (at the very least, the flaws you see in one, versus another, could easily be due to your own biases). But I still think it is possible to critique something like an argument neutrally, and if we are to believe his mission, he’s merely picking out the rhetoric & the fallacies and seeing what’s caught on culturally. As someone who notoriously argues about arguing, though, I can say that it doesn’t appear to be worthwhile/effective: most people resent and ignore it. Still, it seems to me a noble, if maddening, cause. It’s essentially the same reason that Jon Stewart dogged journalists for eating up what lots of politicians and so-called pundits spun forth, since they weren’t holding the talking heads to the facts. It shouldn’t matter what your politics are, a lie or half-truth is still a lie or half-truth and we should be obligated to point it out, to rectify the system and hopefully set it on the right track.
To get all amateur philosopher on you, I think it is a noble thing to do because, ultimately, the facts are elusive. Can we really ever have absolute knowledge on/of anything? It’s my opinion that we take most everything on faith of some kind (even, regarding the existence of G-d, atheism). But it’s when people act with such conviction as to have such truth, or act with a complete and utter disregard for things that we have empirically tested and are as close as we can be to “knowing,” that one should be skeptical and responsible. It’s not going to be a popular decision always, and like everything, it isn’t mutually exclusive of being a jackass either.
Zack
March 18, 2008 at 1:59 am
I see your point and to a degree I agree. I mean, on the other hand Fish is doing exactly what the Times’ core mission is: to cut through some of the bullshit of what people are saying and really get at the heart of an argument or reveal why someone should disbelieve something. From what you wrote, Fish is really just promoting skepticism which is something we in the U.S. have needed far more of as of the last few years.
Mos Def Daniel
March 18, 2008 at 2:18 am
Can I just point out that the mission of the New York Times, and journalism, is different from the mission of a Stanley Fish? Stanley Fish has no claim to objectivity. Nor does he need one. He isn’t reporting on the facts, he is arguing for or against certain arguments in our culture (for example, that identity politics is bad). He’s not, as you say, arguing for the sake of arguing. He is arguing because he cares about these arguments; many people apparently do. The question of whether people will listen is not material. It’s Socrates.
jadedhack
March 19, 2008 at 3:19 am
No, I did not say that he argues for the sake of arguing. He explains that that critique on the argument of God because the argument itself is “sloppy.” That isn’t arguing necessarily because of the issue itself, just the way it’s presented which is what I was saying. He cares about how the arguments are presented and interpreted. I don’t know if I’d go so far to say that he cares about the arguments in the way the readers do. My point was that they’re different.
But I believe that you can’t be completely impartial in critiquing every argument you care about because sooner or later one such side taken based on personal belief rather than quality of presentation. It’s inevitable. I mentioned the Times not because Fish is a journalist but because of the results of meditation in the journalism field on objectivity that nobody can be completely un-swayed.
Mos Def Daniel
March 19, 2008 at 3:46 am
Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog.
Cheers! Sandra. R.
sandrar
September 10, 2009 at 1:52 pm