Dean's World

The Pryhills have the latest Carnival of the Vanities for your reading pleasure.

LaShawn Barber asks, should bloggers allow comments, or not?

Sean Kinsell recently discovered that amongst his group of friends, he wasn't the only queer Bush voter. It was eye-opening to read about their discussion.

The latest addition to the Dean's World blogroll is Xtreme Blog, dedicated to all sorts of techie geeky stuff. There's always something interesting going on over there.

Economist Arnold Kling has an Open Letter to Paul Krugman. Aside from confronting Krugman (who really needs confronting), I really liked Kling's analysis of the difference between "Type C" and "Type M" arguments. Type M arguments really bug me, and after reading Kling's piece I'm going to start trying harder to avoid them. I do find myself wondering though: is there a third type? One where someone just automatically gainsays another's arguments while taking no consistent position themselves? Those are the type that upset me the most.

Radley Balko has some interesting numbers on carbon emission goals and power plant requirements for the future. My own short response: whether we care about carbon emissions or not, it's still a crime against nature that we aren't making greater use of nuclear power.

Paul Burgess notes that Uma Thurman has huge hands. She has big feet too.

Are you, or your church, or your school, or your workplace, interested in sending toys, medical supplies, or school supplies for soldiers to distribute in Iraq? If so, Federal Express will offer you free shipping to the Operation Give Warehouse in Utah--and Operation Give will ship the items free to Iraq from there. How can you not take advantage of that offer?

(link)

JMG (mail) (www):

I think it was the prevalence of "type M" arguments that helped make the political atmosphere so poisonous during the recent election, but I also believe that "type M" discussions are needed sometimes, because motivations guide the decisions of people at least as often as consequences. As a matter of fact, I have seen people make decisions despite full knowledge of the negative consequences that would arise from their choice. So, even if minds are rarely changed by "type M" discussions, sometimes they do need to occur.

There are other types of arguments, not counting the one you mention of gainsaying without taking a position themselves (a "type W" as in "You're wrong" perhaps?), but they are not as easily defined.

12.16.2004 2:46am

Dean Esmay (www):

Questioning someone's motives is valid I admit, but assuming you know someone's motives should be undertaken only very carefully.

I like the idea of a type W argument, the automatic "you're wrong" argument.

When I get into an argument with someone and I sense that there is nothing underlying their questions except the desire to argue or seem clever, or to simply score points, I actually feel betrayed. To me an argument is a process by which truth can be tested and hopefully arrived at. If not by arriving at agreement then at least by arriving at a mutual understanding of where the disagreement lies. When I sense that people aren't playing that way, I feel kind of dirty.

12.16.2004 3:15am

Yes, there is a vast difference between questioning someone's motives and assuming the motives are known. Taking the tactic of assuming the motives are known is not what I call an argument at all, unless by "argument" one does not mean "part of a discussion to try to arrive at the truth or at least a mutual accomodation." Instead, assuming (usually malevolent) motives of opponents is mostly used when "preaching to the choir", which happens quite frequently in some of the echo chambers that have formed in blogworld.

I understand your feeling dirty when you discover you are dealing with people who aren't trying to make type C arguments or aren't interested in the process you describe. I don't feel dirty when I get stuck in them, I just get frustrated because it feels incredibly pointless to me.

12.16.2004 3:41am

Robin Munn (mail):

"Type M" arguments have been around for ages: C.S. Lewis wrote an essay about them in 1941. He called it "Bulverism", after an imaginary person named Bulver who used to love to win arguments with "You're just saying that because you're a _________" (fill in the blank).

Ah, here we go. I found a complete copy of Lewis's essay here. The key paragraph is the sixth paragraph, which starts: "In other words, you must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method [Note: This essay was written in 1941.] is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became to be so silly."

12.16.2004 7:49am

sherard (mail):

Dean - all is not lost in the area of nuclear power. There are two coalitions - if you will - of nuclear operators pursuing building a plant in the US. The first step is getting DOE funding and then a license issued. The coalition my company is part of has sited Mississippi as the home of the next generation nuclear plant. Everything is expected to be in place by 2010, with construction planned to complete, I think, by 2014. A long time, yes, but in this industry, actually pretty swift movement.

And once one is licensed and then built, especially with a standardized design, I think more will come fast and furious.

The rest of the world is rapidly moving forward with advanced designs. It's about time we caught back up. At least in building them. The designs being used around the world are already of US origins.

12.16.2004 8:19am

maor (mail):

"My own short response: whether we care about carbon emissions or not, it's still a crime against nature that we aren't making greater use of nuclear power.
Paul Burgess notes that Uma Thurman has huge hands. She has big feet too."

Nice sequence.

12.16.2004 2:11pm