The second edition of Why we argue (and how we should) by Robert Talisse and our own Scott Aikin is now out. You can get it here or (what’s better) at your local bookstore.
Devoted readers of this site will recognize some of the ideas, but (and perhaps I’m biased) all will appreciate its lively approach to the topic of disagreement and informal logic. It’s primary virtue is that it’s a self-aware discussion of informal reasoning–it recognizes that everyone is already familiar with the metalanguage of argument and this is what amounts to its biggest challenges. Along these lines, the new edition has stuff on deep disagreement, the Owl of Minerva Problem, and online arguing.
This journal is free online. Get your latest edition here. Right now, I’m reading the Maynes article on Cognitive Bias and Critical Thinking (tl;dr teaching critical thinking strategies without “debias” strategies is problematic). Later, I will certainly read the Godden piece on argumentation and rationality.
For the informal logic connoisseurs, the modus tonens (identified by our very own Scott Aikin and co author Robert Talisse) consists in repeating back an interlocutor’s argument in a derisive tone (see also here). There is a visual version of that which has long bothered me. It involves posting a jerky looking photo of the person whose view you derisively or incredulously report (not refute, by the way, and I think this is important). This happens in reporting, as the refutation is the picture. Let’s provisionally call it the “ad deformem” (against ugly).
Take the above example from Talking Points Memo. No doubt there exist lots of pictures of Erickson. This one makes him look like a bloviating jerk. What did he say?
In many, many animal species, the male and female of the species play complementary roles, with the male dominant in strength and protection and the female dominant in nurture. It’s the female who tames the male beast. One notable exception is the lion, where the male lion looks flashy but behaves mostly like a lazy beta-male MSNBC producer.
Yes, he certainly deserves to be laughed at for that. But I don’t see the relevance of an uncharitable picture. I don’t see the relevance of any picture at all, actually, save to identify the mug for the onlooking audience–to distinguish Erickson from George Will for instance.
The argument seems bad enough on its own. And I think the uncharitable picture undermines, rather than advances, the report. An accurate report ought to be enough to call attention to the appalling view; the picture turns our attention away from that and onto the person with the view.
Naturally these two persons need not always conflict (the ad hominem after all is not always fallacious), but one ought to be judicious in using them.