Here’s an idea that sounds, at first, very nice: when you need to criticize a bad idea, or a common sort of bad behavior, don’t say whose idea it is, or give examples of people engaging in the bad behavior. From a purely pragmatic angle, you don’t want to provoke angry reactions from the people you had in mind. Also, anything you can do to avoid angry debate, and avoid embarrassing people, is taking the high road.
Admirable as this attitude sounds, I think it exactly backwards: not saying who you’re talking about is a serious sin in any sort of discussion. It’s something we need to warn people off of more often, the way we warn them off the major fallacies or failure to cite sources.
This is something I’ve had to think about for awhile, since I regularly post harsh criticisms of things people say, with names attached. But I decided to write about it because of a series of posts by Phil Plait about his “Don’t Be a Dick” speech at TAM 8, and because of Jerry Coyne’s response to those posts. (Note: the first link contains a video of the talk, but if you’re pressed for time, there’s also a partial transcript that contains most of the important stuff. Previous comments of mine based on the transcript are here).
Coyne took exception to the insinuation that there were lots of skeptics running around calling believers “brain damaged baby rapers,” and suggested Plait’s behavior wasn’t all that different than that of “Tom Johnson,” the blog commenter who fabricated a story of Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers verbally abusing believers. He especially objected to Plait’s refusal to give examples even after people complained about his failure to do so. Plait claimed finding examples was “trivially easy,” a stance Ophelia Benson glossed as “Oddly enough, many of them pointed out the lack of evidence and examples. Hey there are lots, ok?!”
What’s ironic about the situation is that Plait is complaining about people misunderstanding him, and in particular complaining of being accused of targeting Richard Dawkins or PZ Myers. What Plait doesn’t understand is that such confusions could be avoided if he would simply say what he is talking about.
But not identifying your targets doesn’t just put you at risk of being misunderstood. It breaks fundamental rules of fairness. It makes it nigh impossible for your targets to respond to your criticism. And it makes it impossible for your readers to tell if you are being fair to your targets.
There may be something tempting in theory about trying to sort out all issues through abstract discussions, but in the real world, part of sorting out difficult problems is seeing what people have to say, and seeing how they respond to criticism. Refusing to name the targets of your criticism robs your listeners of the ability to do that.
And of course, the fact that Plait wasn’t explicitly attacking anyone in particular doesn’t mean he wasn’t attacking anyone. He just wasn’t naming them. That only served to make his attacks that much more unfair to his targets.
Feel kinda silly just posting “yeah I agree”, So I will try to add something.
While I may have disagreed no matter if he gave examples of the behavior. If he had even given a more reasonable example of the behavior he was talking about, it would have helped. As it is if you look the the links to those who “agree” with him almost all of them have different ideas of what he was saying. So even the people who totally thought it was just a great speech and needed to be said didn’t understand his meaning.
And what you say is all the more true when the criticism is made in a context of already existing and very contested criticism – like that of “Tom Johnson” for example. There’s a full-blown and very hyperbolic backlash against gnu atheism as it is, so adding yet another installment while not saying exactly what you mean is all the more unfair.
It’s interesting that the naive, unconsidered view can’t be blamed for thinking name omission is “the nice thing to do,” when in reality it turns out to be anything but.
Also, it’s funny all the bickering there is over how rude we “new atheists” are, when upon closer inspection we appear to be nothing other than honest and forward in our side of the discussion. (Of course there are actual rude atheists, and I’m sure we cross the line at times, but the frequency and degree to which we do so I’m sure is vastly exaggerated by the over-inflated delicate sensibilities of the religious.)
A very insightful essay, thanks.
Just look at Loftus at Dangerous Idea there’s a good example of a skeptic being a total dick. Jerky asshole skeptics are a dime a dozen: doesn’t have to be published just to to pretty much any skeptical website. Meyers is obviously a disrespectful ass. I’m surprised people are being all in a huff over this to anyone that has been involved in the skeptical community for any time, it is obvious he is right. Gimme a break folks.
Jerky asshole skeptics are a dime a dozen: doesn’t have to be published just go to pretty much any skeptical website. Meyers is obviously a disrespectful ass. Just look at Loftus at Dangerous Idea and his attempts to interact with Tim McGrew. I’m surprised people are being all in a huff over this. Anyone that has been involved in the skeptical community for any time, it is obvious he is right. Gimme a break folks.
Also, what Hallq is suggestingt is at odds with an older tradition of “passive tense” in such personal criticisms (as opposed to substantive academic criticisms, which these are not).
With such personal matters, it is up to each individual to decide if he has been a dick, and sometimes it is better to describe dickish behavior generally rather than to call out individuals. It’s considered a sign of respect. Note I realize that may be antiquated, but I don’t think in this case it’s a big deal, given the undeniable frequency of dickweed behavior in the skeptical community.
My hunch is that people who got defensive about the talk may have some soul searching to do.
BDK,
Your counter-point to this post seems to be just that it was obvious what Plait was talking about in his talk. Maybe this wasn’t sufficiently clear in my post, but I think the fact that Plait had to deny having targeted his talk at Dawkins and Myers is pretty strong evidence that it wasn’t obvious what he was talking about.
As for John at Vic’s blog, I can see where you might think John should have shown more patience, but I’m not sure how much more he really should or could have tried to do. Vic isn’t a college student politely asking a question at a public lecture, he’s an academic who’s gotten published in a fairly important anthology and runs a blog to promote his views. And in spite of his credentials, he’s repeatedly shown great difficulty understanding the arguments against his views. After enough of that, it becomes very hard to avoid the conclusion that he’s incompetent or (as John suggests) deluded.
Yes, Victor’s constant repetition of those crazy martyr arguments and the argument via civics lessons can get annoying I agree.
I guess I think Plait is right, at least in general spirit. What especially bugs me is people who obviously don’t know nearly as much as they think they know acting dismissive and arrogant. This is obviously a really rampant trait among evangelicals (e.g., the creationists), but I really hate to see it among the community that claims to use the scientific method as the sine qua non (which I applaud). A scientific approach tends to be more wracked with doubt and open questions than many of the blog skeptics come off.
If he didn’t mean Meyers I don’t know who the hell he meant. That seems wimpy frankly.