Difference between revisions of "Opposing Libertarianism"
From Critiques Of Libertarianism
(Created page with "<!-- you can have any number of categories here --> 950 {{DES | des = Opposing evangelical libertarianism is easy, but there's lots to learn to do it effectiv...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!-- you can have any number of categories here --> | <!-- you can have any number of categories here --> | ||
[[Category:Basics|950]] | [[Category:Basics|950]] | ||
| + | {{Under Construction}} | ||
| + | |||
{{DES | des = Opposing evangelical libertarianism is easy, but there's lots to learn to do it effectively. Here is an overview of some of what you would want to know. | show=}} | {{DES | des = Opposing evangelical libertarianism is easy, but there's lots to learn to do it effectively. Here is an overview of some of what you would want to know. | show=}} | ||
<!-- insert wiki page text here --> | <!-- insert wiki page text here --> | ||
<!-- DPL has problems with categories that have a single quote in them. Use these explicit workarounds. --> | <!-- DPL has problems with categories that have a single quote in them. Use these explicit workarounds. --> | ||
<!-- otherwise, we would use {{Links}} and {{Quotes}} --> | <!-- otherwise, we would use {{Links}} and {{Quotes}} --> | ||
| + | =Understand the principles of discussion.= | ||
| + | ==Know and recognize fallacies of logic and argument. Try to avoid using them yourself.== | ||
| + | {{List|Know and recognize fallacies of logic and argument.}} | ||
| + | ==Know and recognize principles of propaganda. Try to avoid using them yourself.== | ||
| + | {{List|Know and recognize principles of propaganda.}} | ||
| + | ==Try to use the principle of charity.== | ||
| + | Interpret your partner's argument to make it as good as possible, not as poor as possible. If you misinterpret because of this principle, you will be in a stronger position when you are corrected. | ||
| + | {{List|Try to use the principle of charity.}} | ||
| + | ==Reasoning has limitations.== | ||
| + | Claims to "reason" or "rationality" should not necessarily convince us. Our suspiscions should start with first, the circularity of justifying reason with reason. | ||
| + | {{List|Reasoning has limitations.}} | ||
| + | ==Know your terms.== | ||
| + | {{List|Know your terms.}} | ||
| + | ==Know your own position.== | ||
| + | {{List|Know your own position.}} | ||
| + | ==Base your arguments on knowledge, rather than your own say so.== | ||
| + | If you think it's so, confirm it by looking it up, rather than arguing about it. It's all too easy and tempting to make claims based on opinion, but we all frequently form mistaken opinions. | ||
| + | ==Even if it's in a book or on the web, it may not be true.== | ||
| + | There are vast numbers of recorded claims in books and other media that have been soundly refuted; find out what the counter claims are and which you should give more credence. | ||
| + | ==Remember what has gone on before.== | ||
| + | It is dishonest to ignore the context of prior exchanges. Remember what both your partner and you have said. Memory is brief only in verbal argument, written copies can show you to be forgetful. If you don't want to be consistent, it's OK as long as it's above board. | ||
| + | ==Broad claims tend to be very weak.== | ||
| + | There may be counter examples, better alternative explanations, or just plain little support beyond coincidence. Frequently, broad claims arise in propaganda or rhetoric rather than in careful analysis. Be suspicious of such claims, and treat them more as hypotheses than facts. | ||
| + | ==Admit when you've been wrong.== | ||
| + | You'll be admired for your honesty, and will then have a point of agreement as a basis for further discussions. Not having a counter-argument is different than being wrong; there's no shame in saying you don't know yet, and you don't need to accept your partner's claim. | ||
| + | ==Don't interpret delays in answering as "winning".== | ||
| + | It is not uncommon for new arguments to need years to be assessed for validity, even among professional scientists, philosophers, etc. Suspended judgement and skepticism are very valid responses. | ||
| + | |||
| + | These are just informal, off-the-cuff principles for good discussion: doubtless we can find lots of other candidates and improvements for this list. | ||
| + | |||
| + | There are also some basics that are very important to sophisticated discussion of libertarianism. | ||
| + | |||
| + | =Basics for libertarian discussion.= | ||
| + | {{List|Basics for libertarian discussion.}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | The links provided here are my own pick, and may not be unbiased. Please feel free to suggest other appropriate links. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
{{List|Opposing Libertarianism|links=true}} | {{List|Opposing Libertarianism|links=true}} | ||
{{Quotations|Opposing Libertarianism|quotes=true}} | {{Quotations|Opposing Libertarianism|quotes=true}} | ||
