{"id":4589,"date":"2013-12-23T09:51:21","date_gmt":"2013-12-23T14:51:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/?p=4589"},"modified":"2013-12-24T17:58:10","modified_gmt":"2013-12-24T22:58:10","slug":"maybe-youre-the-problem","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/?p=4589","title":{"rendered":"Maybe you’re the problem"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
Hacks<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In their recent book (and in their TV appearances!), Why We Argue<\/a>, Scott and Rob make the case for vigorous, meaningful, and competent public argument. \u00c2\u00a0The competence part of this is the most obvious. \u00c2\u00a0Logic texts have long made the case for this, taking a “skills” approach to the subject–learn to reason well, and you will\u00c2\u00a0reason well.<\/p>\n

Well, that’s not the case. \u00c2\u00a0Smart Harvard types have long been the most vigorous practitioners of the fine art of sophistry (for evidence, see anyone of our 1500 or so posts here). \u00c2\u00a0The problem with these guys isn’t the lack of vigor, they’ve got lots of that. \u00c2\u00a0The problem is the “meaningful” part. \u00c2\u00a0They don’t, or can’t possibly, mean what they say. \u00c2\u00a0They’re hacks.<\/p>\n

A fundamental presupposition to productive argumentation, after all, is that the other person arguing means what she says. \u00c2\u00a0Hacks do not mean what they say. \u00c2\u00a0They take the party line whether it’s the best available view or not. \u00c2\u00a0So I find it disturbing to read this post<\/a> by Jonathan Bernstein, defending them. \u00c2\u00a0His main reasons:<\/p>\n

I think Chait is talking about something like a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153public intellectual\u00e2\u20ac\u009d model, and what I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122d say is that there\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s also room for a lawyer model.<\/strong> For a lawyer-model pundit, it doesn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t matter so much if she said the exact opposite thing five years ago, but it still matters a lot if she gets her facts right and makes well-reasoned, well-informed, arguments.<\/p>\n

I guess the question is whether there\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s really any need for lawyer-style commentators, given that it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s the professional responsibility of many politicians to essentially do that. I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122d say: sure<\/strong>. Commentators, as opposed to politicians or their staff, are relatively free to make the argument properly, without having to worry about the political fallout from the various speed traps and potholes that politicians have to shy away from \u00e2\u20ac\u201d or from winning daily spin wars.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The hack, by definition, is not making the “argument properly.” \u00c2\u00a0Part of making the argument properly is believing what you say. \u00c2\u00a0The lawyer doesn’t have to believe what she says because there’s a judge, a jury, a process for evaluating (and restricting) their utterances. \u00c2\u00a0Hacks throw themselves into a game claiming to be something they’re not. \u00c2\u00a0This, I think, is fundamentally destructive to argumentation.<\/p>\n

To be fair, this is pretty much how Bernstein concludes:<\/p>\n

Granted, it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s unlikely that anyone is going to identify himself as a lawyer-style commentator.<\/strong> And yes, one tip-off that Krauthammer isn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t worth bothering with is his extreme certainty that he\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s correct, even as (as Chait notes) he flips from one side to another of an issue based on partisan tides. But overall, there\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s probably a lot more room for good lawyer-style pundits than Chait thinks.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Granted indeed, and good example! \u00c2\u00a0But that’s really the entirety of Bernstein’s case.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In their recent book (and in their TV appearances!), Why We Argue, Scott and Rob make the case for vigorous, meaningful, and competent public argument. \u00c2\u00a0The competence part of this is the most obvious. \u00c2\u00a0Logic texts have long made the case for this, taking a “skills” approach to the subject–learn to reason well, and you … Continue reading Maybe you’re the problem<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[1657,115,165,580,1812,1811,408,407,1795],"class_list":["post-4589","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-argumentation","tag-charles-krauthammer","tag-hackery","tag-hacks","tag-lawyer-model-public-argument","tag-partisan-hacks","tag-robert-talisse","tag-scott-aikin","tag-why-we-argue"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4589","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4589"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4589\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4595,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4589\/revisions\/4595"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4589"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4589"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4589"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}