I have been following the comments on several blogs, particularly on Brad DeLong's site. For example, Julian Elson asked these interesting questions:
1. Do m-arguments help liberals in winning against conservatives?
2. If liberals rely on m-arguments, will they be able to maintain their honesty in general ...
3. If liberals rely on m-arguments, and they *don't* win the country back, what will the reliance on m-arguments do to the conservatives who do have power? Will it keep them more honest, for example, since m-arguments are more blunt in pointing out corruption, deceit, etc.?
My view is that type M arguments tend to have bad consequences. Incidentally, I think that they have bad consequences when they are used by conservatives. I am upset with Paul Krugman for using them because he is an economist, not because he is a liberal. I hold economists to a higher standard.
I do not think that type M arguments win over the other side. I do not think they keep the other side honest. I think that they make the other side angry.
Perhaps type M arguments help to win by "rallying the troops." If this is true, then I think that there are costs in terms of the ability to effect rational policies later on. But I tend to doubt that it is true, since people in the center are not rallied, and probably are turned off.
That brings me to what I call the catch-22 of type M arguments. They are most compelling when they are least needed. That is, the people who are convinced by your type C arguments don't need your type M arguments in order to be won over. But the people who are not convinced by your type C arguments are unlikely to buy your type M arguments.
Suppose that I am open minded or undecided. I see X and Y having an argument. X's type C arguments do not convince me. At that point, am I likely to accept X's type M arguments about Y? I doubt it.
Yes, I care about other people's motives. But I believe that when you debate public policy, the best approach is to take your opponent's motives at face value and argue over consequences. If you fail to convince me on those grounds, shifting over to motives will not help you.
The least convincing rationale for making type M arguments is "The other side does it to us." A lot of people have made type M arguments agains me, both on this topic and on others. I have never felt that it would help me to respond in kind. Instead, if they make type C arguments, I address them. If someone makes only type M arguments, then I do not waste my time on that person.
1.0
1. Scot Johnson on October 13, 2003 02:34 PM writes...
Speaking of economists, I think I recall reading that Milton Friedman's approach to argument was that you simply make the type C argument and let the other fellow take the argument away, mull it over, and decide on its merits later. I believe I read that in a David Friedman Usenet post. I've always thought this was a good strategy. In my experience, questioning someone's motives can feel very threatening to the person whose ideas are under attack and may make them hold on to an untenable C position even when they *should* change their minds. Of course, the other thing is even folks with bad motives can be making a good C argument.
Permalink to Comment2. phil jones on October 13, 2003 10:42 PM writes...
I wrote a response to your original on my weblog (http://blahsploitation.blogspot.com) but I'll repeat it here to save clicking through. (And to tidy up the argument a bit :-)
I agree, Ad Hominem attacks, including criticism of an opponent's motives, are irrelevant when you want to make an argument like this : I say A -> B (eg. tax cuts imply economic prosperity). If you disagree, the reason *why* I said it, has no bearing on whether it's true or not.
However, if you want to argue a different point, that I am untrustworthy, then evidence of my malice, stupidity or duplicity is completely relevant.
When Krugman attacks supply-side economics he doesn't do it on the grounds that supply siders are motivated by right-wing politics, he does it on his interpretation of the data. With a perfectly valid "Consequences" argument.
To put this formally, let's say C = "pure motives"
Kling suggests Krugman is arguing
C -> (A->B),
NOT C
therefore
NOT (A->B)
Which clearly has no logical validity.
But I'd say he's arguing
A, (Raegan's tax cuts)
NOT B (No sign of supply side effect in the data)
therefore
NOT (A -> B)
AND he introduces
NOT C
(though this is an independent issue argued for with separate data.)
Krugman does add some logically unnecessary evidence :
NOT A (Clinton's tax increase),
B (economic growth in the 90s)
from which we can conclude nothing about A -> B. Though if there was a claim of "B iff A", this might be relevant.
But really, all Krugman is guilty of, is adding a second, separate claim, about power and politics, which attempts to explain why supply-side theory is so heavily promoted.
Kling is right that the second point has no logical bearing on the first.
But that's not why it's there in the article.
It has a different relevance. A political one. It's a warning ... "these guys are not motivated by improving the economy according to supply-side theory, they're motivated by wanting to shrink government, so evidence or arguments against supply-side economic theory *aren't going to stop them*."
Now Krugman may be wrong in his interpretation of the data, and supply-side may not have been falsified. In fact, supply-side economic theory may well be true. But with the assumption that he's right about this, the *rest* of the logic of the article is fine.
I agree with Kling that ad hominem arguments have no validity, and aren't much use. Certainly the point that they're preaching to the converted is a good one.
Because I happen to be on the left, I tend to notice the ad hominem attacks by the right. But I freely admit the left is guilty of them too, and I often try to cure my friends of this reasoning.
On the other hand, the implication that M type and other ad hominem arguments are tools *mainly* of the liberals and not also the right, needs some justification.
Permalink to Comment