viscousmemories
10-17-2006, 12:13 AM
I've been wanting to start a thread about this forever because I think a lot of people probably have the same misconception of what it means to read arguments charitably that I used to have. Of course I might still not get it, but I think this is at least in the ballpark.
Everyone probably thinks they know what it means to treat people charitably. If you're like I was you probably think it's no more than a quaint platitude, roughly defined as "treating others in a benevolent or generous manner" or simply giving someone the benefit of the doubt. However, I've learned that when people talk about reading an argument charitably, they might be referring to something more nuanced: the methodological principle of charity (http://www.answers.com/topic/principle-of-charity).
As I understand it the principle of charity is a method of approaching argumentation whereby one assumes the strongest possible interpretation of their opponent's argument before attempting to refute it. So for example rather than playing "spot the fallacy" and tearing a bad argument to shreds to for the benefit of the cheering crowds, you make sure the argument you're attacking is as solid as it can be.
Of course this behavior is benevolent and generous, but there are perfectly good reasons to use this method even without such lofty motivations. Specifically, it can benefit you. Obviously being able to spot fallacies is a useful skill, but taking on arguments in their strongest form is an intellectual exercise head and shoulders above that fairly rudimentary ability. If you don't already know all there is to know about a given issue, it can be an excellent way to improve your own understanding.
Everyone probably thinks they know what it means to treat people charitably. If you're like I was you probably think it's no more than a quaint platitude, roughly defined as "treating others in a benevolent or generous manner" or simply giving someone the benefit of the doubt. However, I've learned that when people talk about reading an argument charitably, they might be referring to something more nuanced: the methodological principle of charity (http://www.answers.com/topic/principle-of-charity).
As I understand it the principle of charity is a method of approaching argumentation whereby one assumes the strongest possible interpretation of their opponent's argument before attempting to refute it. So for example rather than playing "spot the fallacy" and tearing a bad argument to shreds to for the benefit of the cheering crowds, you make sure the argument you're attacking is as solid as it can be.
Of course this behavior is benevolent and generous, but there are perfectly good reasons to use this method even without such lofty motivations. Specifically, it can benefit you. Obviously being able to spot fallacies is a useful skill, but taking on arguments in their strongest form is an intellectual exercise head and shoulders above that fairly rudimentary ability. If you don't already know all there is to know about a given issue, it can be an excellent way to improve your own understanding.