If we’re all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here’s an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy:

Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like:

The author’s main point seems to be x. As he says:

<quotation>

But this is wrong for the following reasons…

The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actual statement of the author’s main point. It’s enough to refute something it depends upon

Paul Graham

Post was last modified on 1 Aug 2016 9:54 pm

Share
Published by
Dennis G. Jerz

Recent Posts

Creating textures for background buildings in a medieval theater simulation project. I can always improve this later. #blender3d

Creating textures for background buildings in a medieval theater simulation project. I can always improve…

11 hours ago

Yesterday my stack of unmarked assignments was about 120, so this is not bad.

Nothing in this stack is pressing, but they do include rough drafts of final papers,…

1 day ago

ai, ai, ai: critical thinking and literacy won’t save you

Here’s the underlying problem. We have an operating image of thought, an understanding of what…

1 day ago

Representing the Humanities at Accepted Students Day.

Representing the Humanities at Accepted Students Day.

5 days ago

The daughter opens another show. This weekend only.

The daughter opens another show. This weekend only.

5 days ago

How to Disagree Academically: Using Graham’s “Disagreement Hierarchy” to organize a college term paper.

How to Disagree Academically: Using Graham's "Disagreement Hierarchy" to organize a college term paper.

5 days ago