Difference between revisions of "Soldier argument"
(post-move rewrite) |
(Krugman quip) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
{{nav/dark-arts}} | {{nav/dark-arts}} | ||
==About== | ==About== | ||
| − | A [[soldier argument]] is any [[argument]] that is used 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]]. Such arguments are made only when it suits a predetermined [[political agenda|agenda]], and ignored when it conflicts with that agenda. It a form of [[hypocrisy]], i.e. advancing a given [[principle]] in cases where it supports one's [[belief]]s but ignoring or denying it in cases where it contradicts those beliefs. | + | A [[soldier argument]] is any [[argument]] that is used 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]]. |
| + | |||
| + | Such arguments are made only when it suits a predetermined [[political agenda|agenda]], and ignored when it conflicts with that agenda. It a form of [[hypocrisy]], i.e. advancing a given [[principle]] in cases where it supports one's [[belief]]s but ignoring or denying it in cases where it contradicts those beliefs -- or, as [[Paul Krugman]] [http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/opinion/paul-krugman-the-inflation-and-rising-interest-rates-that-never-showed-up.html put it], they are used "the way a drunkard uses a lamppost: for support, not for illumination." | ||
The [[worldview]] which supports this kind of argumentation 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]]. | The [[worldview]] which supports this kind of argumentation 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]]. | ||
Revision as of 21:07, 25 November 2014
| Dark Arts portal |
|---|
About
A soldier argument is any argument that is used 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.
Such arguments are made only when it suits a predetermined agenda, and ignored when it conflicts with that agenda. It a form of hypocrisy, i.e. advancing a given principle in cases where it supports one's beliefs but ignoring or denying it in cases where it contradicts those beliefs -- or, as Paul Krugman put it, they are used "the way a drunkard uses a lamppost: for support, not for illumination."
The worldview which supports this kind of argumentation 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.
Soldier arguments are often used 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.
alias: arguments as soldiers
Links
Reference
Wikipedia- LessWrong Wiki
RationalWiki: no information as of 2012-10-24