more on critique

A more general thought… It continues to surprise me that some people really think that merely negating someone else’s position is a productive way to hold discussions.

Imagine the following scenario: you’re reading a book, and you find something that you think is wrong. You feel moved to write to the author about it. How do you go about this?

Option A would be to write to them and say: “You’re completely wrong. I disagree.” (And by the way, I do get letters like this, as do many authors.) But where the hell does the discussion go from there? What are you going to say back to them? “No, I’m right.”

Now, we all do read things from time to time that are just utterly false, and that need to be called out. (Such as Klausmeyer’s comment, or Carlin Romano’s true hatchet job on Heidegger in a recent issue of the Chronicle.) But barring those sorts of situations, which are relatively rare, if you’re moved to engage in some sort of critical exchange with a person, it’s probably because you find something of value in their position.

Just negating, critiquing, and taking away really doesn’t advance discussion very far. A better way to proceed, both in terms of manners and also in terms of sheer intellectual technique, is to say something like this: “I see your points A and B, and understand the motivation for them. But they lead to C, which seems strange. And you’re also really missing D, E, and F, which have to be considered the real heart of the matter.”

Now you’re in business. Now you have a discussion. It may even be heated and critical, but you’re no longer just sitting in the bleachers jeering at everything. You’re down on the field, taking your own risks, and offering positive counter-claims against the initial claims of your interlocutor. By contrast, there is no risk at all in just sitting in the stands and saying “No no no no no” to everything happening on the field, like a 4-year-old in a bad mood.