Sam Harris recently complained that Glenn Greenwald and Reza Aslan had retweeted this:
I agree with Harris on this point. This is an ad hominem attack. It simply isn't an argument. It doesn't make a case against the truth of what’s being said and it doesn't provide a citation so the statement can be read in context. That’s a shame. It means that Greenwald, Reza Aslan and @dan_verg_ have given up the argument but not accepted defeat.
It doesn't necessarily mean that Harris is right but if he isn't, we're not going to hear why from them.
Listening to the arguments coming from the other side is essential if we're to keep our biases in check and identify weaknesses in our own thinking. That’s one reason why this kind of thing is so disappointing.
The tension at the point of disagreement is where the value is created. If we stop thinking of arguments as hostile encounters and instead think of them as a collaboration for finding the truth despite our flawed intuitions and blind spots, we'll start harnessing real value from our sudden interconnectedness.
To show you what I mean, let’s take a separate example that we're more likely to agree on. Some tweets compiled in this article about the former executive director of the Republican Party in South Carolina.
And in case that wasn’t clear enough:
It’s easy to write this kind of thing off as crazy. I mean you know it’s crazy, right? But how do you know it’s crazy?
Because it’s horrible?
Ebola itself is horrible. That doesn’t give us reason to doubt its existence. We might refuse to kill people on principle regardless of whether we cause more deaths that way. But it’s worth considering whether the problem really does face us with that moral choice.
Because it just seems intuitively wrong?
Puzzles like the Monty Hall problem demonstrate that our intuition with statistics and probability are flawed to say the least. Of 228 people tested, only 13% chose the correct answer which is astounding when you consider that there are only two possible answers.
Because of who's saying it?
That can be a reason to dismiss something out of hand. You can't be expected to analyse every opinion spouted. But that only excuses you from considering it. If you're planning on commenting on it, you're now taking a position and you can't rely on even the nuttiest of people to be wrong 100% of the time.
Because other people are saying it’s wrong?
But how do you know that they know?
Todd Kincannon may be sincere or he may be a troll who just says the most offensive thing he can think of to generate publicity. But me accusing him of trolling wouldn't mean anything to his 59,000 followers on Twitter. Are they all just there for the shenanigans or do at least some of them take this kind of thing seriously?
I could respond by calling him names. “Genocidal fascist maniac” springs to mind for some reason. “Racist” perhaps, for his eagerness to napalm African villages. But while I might walk away dusting my hands and congratulating myself for putting him in his place, I'd have done nothing to convince his followers or even myself that he’s actually wrong.
Let’s take a different approach. Kincannon has put forward an argument, let’s review it.
First, let’s summarise his view fairly. No exaggerations or misrepresentation. I haven’t just cherry-picked a single sentence and I have provided links (above) back to where he makes this claim.
Todd Kincannon claims that:
(A) We want to save as many lives as possible
AND
(B) Treating Ebola patients kills more innocent people than it saves
THEREFORE
(C) The protocol for a positive Ebola test should be immediate humane execution and sanitization of the whole area.
I feel comfortable that that’s an accurate summary of his argument but I'm happy to hear from others if they feel that it isn’t.
The next step is to check the validity of the argument. A and B are premises. C is the conclusion. Do the premises support the conclusion? In other words, if A and B are true does that mean that C must be true?
In this case, it doesn’t. Even if A and B were true, killing people isn't the only alternative. In fact, it wouldn't even be a good solution. Knowing that being diagnosed with Ebola was an instant death-sentence, people would obviously avoid being diagnosed thereby putting far more people at risk.
At this point I would normally say that the argument is invalid and can be dismissed. But for the sake of the example, let’s proceed as though it was valid.
The next step is to consider the truth of each premise.
On premise A (We want to save as many lives as possible) I don't necessarily disagree. One could argue that it’s better to let two people die than to intentionally kill one but we probably don't need to have that conversation. Both points A and B must be true to support his conclusion so we don’t need to drill into point A unless point B is true.
Point B (Treating Ebola patients kills more innocent people than it saves)
The onus is on Kincannon to provide evidence for this. As best I know he hasn't so I've asked him for some:
And he’s replied:
Because Kincannon is unable or unwilling to support his premise, we can simply dismiss his conclusion. I could do the research myself (using my own method not the one he’s suggested) but I won't because I'm not the one making the claim. If he or someone else were to come back with some evidence for B then we could revisit it.
Notice that I haven't mentioned my opinion of Todd Kincannon himself or speculated on his motivations. That’s because it isn't necessary and it isn't constructive. It’s not about him, it’s about his argument. His claim is unsupported by facts and the premises, even if true, wouldn’t support the conclusion so we can dismiss it.
If he wants to get serious and defend his position then maybe he can identify some weakness in my counter-argument. I'd be happy to hear from him.
This is what I mean by arguing. If you're actually interested in being right instead of just popular within your tribe, this is the minimum standard to which you will hold yourself and others. Fail to do this and you won’t persuade anyone even if you do manage to bully them into silence.
So, if you don't like what Sam Harris or anyone else has said, here’s the process:
1. Summarise his views fairly (or get him to)
2. Check that the premises support the conclusion.
3. Check that each premise is true.
If you find that the premises are unfounded or don't support the conclusion, say so and say why.
Finally, and hardest of all, if you find that the premises are true and do support the conclusion, have the grace to admit that what your opponent is saying might actually be right.