Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbsck.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!pmd From: pmd@cbsck.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Hogs and Dogs Message-ID: <1048@cbsck.UUCP> Date: Tue, 30-Jul-85 16:06:01 EDT Article-I.D.: cbsck.1048 Posted: Tue Jul 30 16:06:01 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 1-Aug-85 21:37:14 EDT References: <209@ihlpl.UUCP> <988@cbsck.UUCP>, <630@cybvax0.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 94 A response to Mike Huybensz: >> Another example might be not to waste your time reasoning with someone >> whose clear purpose is to twist your words and misrepresent what you say. >> (Maybe that's why Jesus would never talk to the media :-) ). In your >> dealings with people, you just get to know which ones are sincerely >> interested in what you think and those who just want to drag you through >> the mud no matter what you say. There are enough of the former type >> people around to make it senseless to waste time on the latter. Of >> course, as important as it is not to "cast pearls before swine", it is >> just as important (if not, more so) not to be the swine yourself. [Dubuc] > >That's close to my interpretation. > >I view "pearls before swine" as a heuristic that can have many applications. >Primarily, it is cautions against inefficient methods of spreading and >maintaining beliefs. > >The commonest two applications are against skeptics. First because the >time spent trying to convince a skeptic may more profitably be spent >convincing the gullable. Second, because a skeptic may dissuade you from >your belief. The implicit ad-hominem attack is very valuable in the latter >case, where shaken belief needs to be shored up by anything, no matter how >fallacious. Are you accusing me of one of these applications, Mike? If not, are you denying that my application is valid? Don't you think it's possible to use skepticism as a bullying tactic? I think it lends itself as easily to that purpose as it does to honest inquiry. >Use of this phrase is often pretty good evidence of "swinehood", in my >opinion. It shows how little you value the other person, or how >unjustifiably dogmatic you are. That's why I continue to argue, even >with the people in net.religion.christian. What about dogmatic skeptics? That's not a contradiction in terms, I think. People can be skeptical of ideas and not be hostile. Yet there are those skeptics who apply their skepticism in the same way you accuse some of applying the "pearls before swine" heuristic against skeptics. Not everyone who listens to something that a skeptic refuses is gullable. And skeptics are just as prone to ad hominem attacks a those they are skeptical of. Indeed, a skeptical position on any issue is not immune from being shored up with fallicious argument. I think for some skeptics the possibility of being convinced is just as scary as the possiblility of being dissuaded is for some believers. Failure to disuade can also be a threat to skeptics. This can be shored up by the skeptic with charges of closed-mindedness and the like. (And so the mud-slinging goes back and forth.) Those charges may be true. But the possibility always exists that the argument is bad; which is always harder to face when the argument defends our own position. I think believers and skeptics are equally vulnerable these kind of "mine is better" reflexes. Neither are exempt from "swinehood". The skeptic has the lighter burden than the apologist though, I think, no matter what the issue. It's easy to poke a few holes in something, maybe get carried away in doing so, and act as if that's the end of the matter (whoever gets the last word leaves with the impression that she is right). It's another thing to defend a consistent philosophy of life from the determined "hole pokers". Poking a few holes doesn't prove that the skeptic knows better or has the right explanation, but it often leaves that impression. If someone can make an idea look silly enough he can intimidate others into refusing to consider it for themselves. Even skeptics must believe *some things* themselves (were not talking about classical sceptism where nothing can be believed, are we?), and it is a human tendancy to be less critical of one's own ideas than they are of others. This is an attitude that is not inherent in any particular belief system, but is common to humanity. I don't think that use of the term "pearls before swine" *necessarily* counts as evidence of "swinehood". Mike uses the term in a roundabout way by saying that it often does. But to try to identify the attitude as being inherent in a particular belief (be it a particular religion atheism) comes much closer, I think. The biggest hump to get over is to realize that we are all prone to this kind of thing and to *actively* DO something about it. I think "swinehood" characterizes anyone who refuses to do this. The other side of the hump is to criticism as not necessarily destructive to your position (that's the common reflex). It often has a refining effect on it. Having said all this, let me take an opportunity to plug a book that seems very helpful in this area (I'm only about half way though my reading of it but I'm convinced of the book's value after examining the whole.): The Art of Thinking: A Guide to Critical and Creative Thought by, Vincent Ryan Ruggiero (1984, Harper & Row). It's a very well organized guide (geared for an intorductory college level course in sound thinking practices). It provides clear and useful principles for awareness, creativity, criticism and communication of ideas. There are some helpful exercises at the end of each chapter. I'm sure it will benefit anyone. Paul Dubuc