Difference between revisions of "Soldier argument"
(fixed headers; navbox) |
("soldier argument") |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
{{nav/dark-arts}} | {{nav/dark-arts}} | ||
==About== | ==About== | ||
| − | [[Arguments as soldiers]] refers to a worldview in which [[argument]]s are viewed as a means of compelling or influencing others to agree with a particular preconceived position, rather than being a means of analyzing [[evidence]] and thereby arriving at a better understanding of the [[truth]]. | + | [[Arguments as soldiers]] refers to a worldview in which [[argument]]s are viewed as a means of compelling or influencing others to agree with a particular preconceived position, rather than being a means of analyzing [[evidence]] and thereby arriving at a better understanding of the [[truth]]. An argument used in this fashion – i.e. made only when it suits a predetermined [[political agenda|agenda]], and ignored when it conflicts with that agenda – may therefore be referred to as a "[[soldier argument]]". |
| − | + | This worldview is more or less synonymous with [[identity politics]], where one's [[tribal affiliation]] -- rather than reasoning from facts toward the achievement of a desired goal -- determines one's political position. It is one manifestation of [[ideological protectionism]]. | |
Common strategies used by those who take this worldview include the use of [[rhetorical manipulation]] and [[logical fallacies]] to persuade others of things that are essentially false. | Common strategies used by those who take this worldview include the use of [[rhetorical manipulation]] and [[logical fallacies]] to persuade others of things that are essentially false. | ||
Revision as of 02:03, 7 November 2012
| Dark Arts portal |
|---|
About
Arguments as soldiers refers to a worldview in which arguments are viewed as a means of compelling or influencing others to agree with a particular preconceived position, rather than being a means of analyzing evidence and thereby arriving at a better understanding of the truth. An argument used in this fashion – i.e. made only when it suits a predetermined agenda, and ignored when it conflicts with that agenda – may therefore be referred to as a "soldier argument".
This worldview is more or less synonymous with identity politics, where one's tribal affiliation -- rather than reasoning from facts toward the achievement of a desired goal -- determines one's political position. It is one manifestation of ideological protectionism.
Common strategies used by those who take this worldview include the use of rhetorical manipulation and logical fallacies to persuade others of things that are essentially false.
Using arguments as soldiers tends to create and maintain epistemic closure, since opposing arguments of any kind are viewed as an "enemy" from which the tribe must be protected rather than legitimate criticism which must be accepted if it cannot be refuted.
Links
Reference
Wikipedia- LessWrong Wiki
RationalWiki: no information as of 2012-10-24