Comments on: Testimony and Advertising

By: enthymeme

enthymeme — Sun, 23 Nov 2003 12:17:38 +0000

Epist, I think you're misunderstanding me, or vice versa. You said: Neither Brian nor I have claimed that the logical evaluation is impossible without knowledge of the context of the argument or arguer. Am I misunderstanding the part in bold? "Advertisers, or even people writing in publications that are little more than advertising, do not deserve that kind of trust. But without it there is little to argue about. I cannot evaluate their arguments, because for me it is an open possibility that they are suppressing evidence that tells strongly against their claims." You then say: . . . these trust measures, while not strictly necessary for evaluation per se, are necessary for reasonable evaluation times and efforts. Isn't this precisely my point? I made the distinction between actual practice and the logic of the situation. I read Professor Weatherson's "I cannot evaluate . . ." as an assertion that an evaluation cannot be done, and therefore ought not to be evaluated at all. Involved in this assertion are two claims. The former - that the evaluation cannot be done - addresses the logical situation. The latter - what ought to be done as a result of the logical situation - is a matter of practice. When you say that these "trust measures [are] not strictly necessary for the evaluation per se", aren't you agreeing that evaluation can, in fact, be done? Just that it wouldn't be, for whatever reason, worth the effort in practice, since we have to be mindful of "reasonable evaluation times and efforts"? The point is, evaluation can be done in practice, contrary to what Professor Weatherson claims - so his argument - that it can't be done and therefore ought not to be done - is unsound. You go on to say: The ‘feelings’ you speak of are not meant to be insensible emotions, but rather reasons for this or that action. Right. But I don't think I disagreed with that - I made it clear that what you do is entirely your prerogative. Rather, my point was that your rejoinder is irrelevant to the question of whether the advice is evaluable or not. Remember, Professor Weatherson claims that without trust there is little to argue about . . . and that whatever is argued is unevaluable. This is false. Finally, you say: Brian offered up a banal set of reasons to lower the trust standards for advertisements. On this basis he claims that it is rational to do so. Right, I don't disagree with that. And again: You propose to rebut this by claiming that it is, in fact, possible to assess the merits of an argument, despite its being an advertisement. True, but irrelevant. No I did not "propose to rebut" the conclusion that we should lower the trust standards for advertisements. Indeed, I suggested as much in response to Professor Bertram when I said: ". . . what one ought to [do] hardly needs to be justified. What is absurd is the attempt to justify such a preference [that we ought not to evaluate the arguments] by suggesting that there is nothing to argue about, or that arguments cannot be evaluated because of the motives of the publisher."

By: epist

epist — Sun, 23 Nov 2003 09:02:25 +0000

Enthymeme, In response to my analogy about the investment advisor, you say: “I’d expect the advisor to disclose his holdings/interest in the firms. I’d feel that advisors who don’t are somehow unethical. But of course, my feelings have nothing to do with the merits of his advice. My feelings also have nothing to do with whether said advice is ‘evaluable’ or not. These are logically distinct.” Neither Brian nor I have claimed that the logical evaluation is impossible without knowledge of the context of the argument or arguer. Brian explains in some detail how the standard measures of trust that go into evaluating arguments cannot be justified for advertisements, and how these trust measures, while not strictly necessary for evaluation per se, are necessary for reasonable evaluation times and efforts. Further, Brian’s (and my) arguments concern what is reasonable to expect from an interlocutor. The ‘feelings’ you speak of are not meant to be insensible emotions, but rather reasons for this or that action. Brian offered up a banal set of reasons to lower the trust standards for advertisements. On this basis he claims that it is rational to do so. You propose to rebut this by claiming that it is, in fact, possible to assess the merits of an argument, despite its being an advertisement. True, but irrelevant. What we need is an argument that it’s not a good idea to downgrade advertisements, and the fact that it’s merely possible to overcome the standard epistemic deficiencies in advertisements isn’t enough for that. It’s possible to do all your washing on a rock by the river. That’s not a good reason against recommending against such a practice.

By: Anna

Anna — Sun, 23 Nov 2003 01:22:04 +0000

Seems to me it could be of great benefit to the blogosphere if someone [else] were to put up an “ethical conundra” test – one which allowed the test taker to rank the various scenarios by severity, and specify where s/he would draw the line of acceptability. Then encourage/challenge the various A&B list bloggers to take it and publicise their answers. That way we could get the ethical issues dealt with/debated/decided ahead of time, before reality stepped in and polluted people’s reasoning. Also you could then a) know just what sort of person you were dealing with and b) compare their response to a particular event with their evaluation of similar scenario on the test. And those with great divergence might lose a bit of credibility.

By: john c. halasz

john c. halasz — Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:07:19 +0000

There’s an odd inversion in the terms of the above discussion. A lobbying firm sets up a web-site publication to give its highly interested, tendentious positions resonance from supposedly disinterested argument for those positions, (at least, in a significant number of cases and so that blatently tendentious arguments can partake of the luster of such disinterestedness). Now arguments about public policy or other matters of general public import are supposed to take place from some sort of universalizing perspective, the common interest: hence the supposed prohibition on naked interest, the claim for disinterestedness. The abuse of this convention for narrow partisan gain- and specifically by draping such partisan interest is the cloak of “disinterestedness” to increase the efficacy of lobbying operations- is what is at stake here. To claim the the venue and context of an argument does not vitiate its “logical” validity- (or to counter-claim guilt-by-association)- is to miss the point- or perhaps to sidestep it by adopting a narcissistic/self-righteous stance. In fact, I should think that it is those who were hoodwinked or snookered (or choose your preferred dead-metaphor semantics) into writing for this site should be the most outraged. Argument is a human activity with a point: to persuade by virtue of reasons and evidence. And like any human activity, to claim that context and venue are irrelevant is to de-nature any consideration of said activity. Unless one believes and is willing to argue that there is some timeless, placeless “foundation” for argument on which its “logical” validity can securely rest. Otherwise, the motives of those who placed their argumentitive trust in working for this web-site are not what is impugned by the revelation of its provenance; it is the very intention of their arguments that has been impugned, (presumably unwittingly). It is in the vitiation of intention that context plays its part in impugning the claim to “logical” validity, (since the intention to argue, in this view, must necessarily be engaged and imlicated with other activities and intentions, whether personal or institutionally mediated, that give rise to the occasion for argument).

By: Kramer

Kramer — Sat, 22 Nov 2003 03:07:11 +0000

Thomas: I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who wonders about TCS’ environmental writing generally and more specifically the virtual exclusion of any one who thinks global warming is real. This is perhaps a bit of a strained analogy, but I imagine it a bit like if we were trying to build a house out of, e.g., cooked noodles. Because we’re nontechnical we’d consult with noodle architects and engineers and when we did we’d find that virtually every practicing na/ne tells us that its really hard to build anything because they’re so floppy. Of course we love noodles and their might be a few na/ne’s who insist its possible. But when we go to actually decide wouldn’t we want to hear the 99% of the people who tell us noodle’s flop? In short, TCS is oddly, hugely skewed in their presentation on virtually all climate related issues. It seems only reasonable to believe this reflects an imposed editorial slant. I don’t know who’s doing the imposing but I’m pretty sure it isn’t the Libertarians.

By: neil

neil — Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:18:34 +0000

The thing that really blows me away is how many people are wilfully missing the point. It’s almost as if they’re giving more importance to Crooked Timber’s liberal leanings and condemnation of TCS than the merits of their arguments. Wouldn’t that be ironic?

By: nick

nick — Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:35:51 +0000

For damn sure the issue isn’t whiny left-wing types unable to deal with intelligent, libertarian opposition. I’d snark and say that ‘intelligent libertarian’ was an oxymoron, but I’d rather quote Bill Hicks and say that those who consistently write for TCS are off the artistic roll-call, and every word they write is like a turd falling into my drink.

By: neil

neil — Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:21:08 +0000

IOW, the medium is the message?

By: Russell Arben Fox

Russell Arben Fox — Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:57:14 +0000

As he often does, John Holbo just nailed the whole TCS issue (and all the flustered clucking surrounding it) in this post (here: http://examinedlife.typepad.com/johnbelle/2003/11/some_people_sti.html#more) on his blog. His conclusion? “All the stuff in the Confessore article in which he sort of reads the tea leaves of TCS content like a Kremlin watcher is pretty off. He just found out who owned the place. That’s all he did. And a good thing he did. His article should have been about two paragraphs long. A good two paragraphs. For damn sure the issue isn’t whiny left-wing types unable to deal with intelligent, libertarian opposition.”

By: JoJo

JoJo — Fri, 21 Nov 2003 15:41:17 +0000

Advertising will not be creating in me the desire to have a new car. Of course not, advertising just provides data for the rational exercise of free will. Noam Chomsky agrees. Ayn Rand agrees. Who could think otherwise?

By: aelph

aelph — Fri, 21 Nov 2003 15:09:20 +0000

Many here are missing the point. Yes, it’s true that you can evaluate any argument without concern for the motives of the speaker. But I wonder how many of TCS’s defenders seriously sit down and logically evaluate every piece of advertising they are exposed to. Do they sit around wondering if a given toothpaste’s claim to be “the best” holds under under serious evaluation? No, I’m betting they do what we all do, and write it off to advertising hyperbole. And since TCS has now been revealed to be advertising, I’m going to write them off the same way. Yes, I could spend time evaluating all their claims, but that sounds like just as much of a giant waste of my time as evaluating every commerical I see. I’ve got more important things to do.

By: Thomas Dent

Thomas Dent — Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:53:01 +0000

How does “libertarian” jibe with “industry-owned and funded”? On that criterion, are industry lobbyists de facto libertarians too? A TCS piece on global warming is going to look a lot different in terms of credibility, depending on how much money the site takes from energy companies, for example. Or rather, the totality of TCS’s coverage of global warming is going to look different, since we will get an insight into why certain opinions are expressed on TCS and why others are not. Are we really to believe that the consistency of the antienvironmentalist views expressed is merely due to the libertarian purity of the editor’s heart?

By: raj

raj — Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:38:43 +0000

Let’s see…. How much criticism of Disney’s interests is there on the Disney network, ABC? How much criticism of General Electric’s interests (including its huge defense business) is there on its network NBC? How much criticism regarding Archer Daniels Midland interests is there on ANY network (ADM is a huge advertiser on all of them)? None. But those interests were well known. And the mute not unexpected. But with TCS, it appears that its ownership and advertizer interests were more than a bit surrepticious. One might expect that a publication—print, media, or web—be up front about its interests. If they are not, well, I guess all of them need to be approached with more than a bit of skepticism. Actually, I was wondering why a publication with a name such as TECHcentral station would have columns from a huckster like Glassman. Little did I know that he owned the place.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:44:34 +0000

Ophelia Benson says: You get the same thought with reference to advertising, PR, political rhetoric and (again) advertising, and so on – the endlessly repeated mantra that the audience is not that naive, they know advertisers are trying to sell them things, they can see through it. Really!? It?s that easy, is it? Advertising doesn?t work at all then? Just sheer money thrown away? Who knew! I certainly didn?t, and I don?t believe a word of it. I think advertising and manipulation damn well do work. Advertising works, because people have desires for things. Advertising merely serves to inform those desires, and direct them among competing suppliers. For example: I own a car, I live on my own, and I’m not in a financial position right now where I could get a car loan even if my current one were paid off. Unless my car is wrecked, no amount of car advertising is going to convince me to buy a car. However, at some point in the future, I will have more money, and will want to replace my current car. Advertising will not be creating in me the desire to have a new car. But at that point, I will start paying attention to car advertising, because I will want to know what is available to me. I know perfectly well that all the advertisers are trying to sell me their cars. Because I’ll want to buy someone’s car, I’ll pay some attention to them. Then I’ll buy a car, and I’ll ignore car ads again. Regarding the TCS issue: an analogy can be made with the NRA’s contributions to legislative candidates. Studies have shown that NRA funding is an effect of a candidate’s pro-gun views, not a cause. If the editors of TCS run articles which either won’t offend their sponsors (like the recent chess article) or stories which actively support their sponsors (or their sponsor’s clients), one cannot infer that therefore the authors have been directed to produce articles with those particular opinions. One can find a reasonably good writer somewhere to support almost any political opinion out of personal conviction, rather than as an exercise for pay. TCS, at worst, is finding authors whose political views already agree with TCS’s owners’ clients, and propagating those ideas. TCS doesn’t pretend to be ideologically neutral, unlike, say, the New York Times, so anyone reading an article there knows a) he’s reading an op-ed, and b) he’s reading a libertarian publication. Only a deluded leftist would believe that nobody could hold libertarian viewpoints or opinions which intersect with the interests of corporations without being paid to hold those opinions.

By: enthymeme

enthymeme — Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:29:12 +0000

Epist, How would you feel if you found out the investment advisor you had been paying for stock tips was also taking money from the firms that he was recommending to you? I'd expect the advisor to disclose his holdings/interest in the firms. I'd feel that advisors who don't are somehow unethical. But of course, my feelings have nothing to do with the merits of his advice. My feelings also have nothing to do with whether said advice is 'evaluable' or not. These are logically distinct. What Brian is saying here is banal. Sure, as reasons for an expression of preference (what to read and what to skip), what he is saying is banal. However, it does not follow that "[b]ut without [trust] there is little to argue about" or that "[one] cannot evaluate their arguments" because they have questionable motives. The former is a question of practice, the latter a question of logic. Stop conflating the two while attempting to justify the former. Chris, The suggestion that TCS articles are all like academic journal articles and to be evaluated on the merits of their alone is absurd. Again, what one ought to do is distinct from the question of whether one can do it. Brian invoked an argument which purportedly showed that it can't be done. This addresses the logical question, instead of the normative. I wrote with regards to the reasoning leading to an answer to the former question. I made no comment about the normative question of how one should manage one's reading preferences. Indeed, what one ought to read hardly needs to be justified. What is absurd is the attempt to justify such a preference by suggesting that there is nothing to argue about, or that arguments cannot be evaluated because of the motives of the publisher. This is just bad reasoning.