I think Arnold should try to be more specific about the whole motivations thing.
Motives are important and it can be completely fair to speculate about and examine them in any particular conversation when that inquiry is probative and relevant. Motives are key elements in many crimes and torts, the question of a "motive to fabricate" test…
I think Arnold should try to be more specific about the whole motivations thing.
Motives are important and it can be completely fair to speculate about and examine them in any particular conversation when that inquiry is probative and relevant. Motives are key elements in many crimes and torts, the question of a "motive to fabricate" testimony is raised in a large number of trials, and the institutions to which these questions are important have developed a number of ways beside "naive good faith with no exceptions" to guess at these motives.
He is obviously trying to get at some very common bad behaviors and the unjust use of ad hominem attacks, dehumanizing the people making opposing arguments, and the general premature dismissal of claims not because of what is claimed but because who is claiming. Many writers were very explicit about not wanting to believe the plagiarism accusations made against Gay only because of which side was making them but not because they thought the evidence pointed the other way.
On the other hand, lots of writers do indeed have bad motives, do things for bad reasons, and lie about what they are doing and why, all the time. As Hanson pointed out at length in "The Elephant in the Brain" - even people thinking they are being honest are often wrong about their own motivations, and an enlightened external observer can indeed be more accurate than they themselves are in analyzing their true underlying objectives by inference from their other behaviors and statements. Sometimes it is so clear when someone is arguing in bad faith - and indeed the underlying motives for these bad acts constitute the heart of the matter - that it's not appropriate to criticize people pointing out the obvious.
In order to heal the discourse one must neutralize the incentive to get away with badly-motivated discourse, and it's a good question as to how one might do that without it being allowed sometimes to make a case for the behavior being bad and to call it out in a way that would deter authors from writing that way in the first place.
I think Arnold should try to be more specific about the whole motivations thing.
Motives are important and it can be completely fair to speculate about and examine them in any particular conversation when that inquiry is probative and relevant. Motives are key elements in many crimes and torts, the question of a "motive to fabricate" testimony is raised in a large number of trials, and the institutions to which these questions are important have developed a number of ways beside "naive good faith with no exceptions" to guess at these motives.
He is obviously trying to get at some very common bad behaviors and the unjust use of ad hominem attacks, dehumanizing the people making opposing arguments, and the general premature dismissal of claims not because of what is claimed but because who is claiming. Many writers were very explicit about not wanting to believe the plagiarism accusations made against Gay only because of which side was making them but not because they thought the evidence pointed the other way.
On the other hand, lots of writers do indeed have bad motives, do things for bad reasons, and lie about what they are doing and why, all the time. As Hanson pointed out at length in "The Elephant in the Brain" - even people thinking they are being honest are often wrong about their own motivations, and an enlightened external observer can indeed be more accurate than they themselves are in analyzing their true underlying objectives by inference from their other behaviors and statements. Sometimes it is so clear when someone is arguing in bad faith - and indeed the underlying motives for these bad acts constitute the heart of the matter - that it's not appropriate to criticize people pointing out the obvious.
In order to heal the discourse one must neutralize the incentive to get away with badly-motivated discourse, and it's a good question as to how one might do that without it being allowed sometimes to make a case for the behavior being bad and to call it out in a way that would deter authors from writing that way in the first place.