A couple of days ago, I got into a bit of a back-and-forth with Stephen Bainbridge about his interpretation of a Jonathan Chait piece. While I still think that he should have been more generous in his interpretation of Chait, I was less generous still in my response, and believe on reflection that I owe Prof. Bainbridge an apology. God knows, a bit of snarkiness here and there enlivens discussion in the blogosphere, but it also tends to drive out proper argument in favour of the venting of spleen on both sides. I think we could have had a proper argument here. My bad.
“Is this the right blog for an argument?”
“I’ve told you once.”
Reasoned, civil arguments: good. But reasoned, heated, ungenerous arguments: fine too. Polemic has its place, and readers can tell reasoned but ungenerous arguments from ungenerous arguments (or just plain old shouting).
But are you really apologizing even now?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=my+bad&r=f
just poking fun - I hear people use “my bad” as a non-apology and an apology.
Yes, certainly polemic has its place but in this instance I’m quite sure it was inappropriate. I disagree with Stephen Bainbridge about a whole lot of things, but he seems to me to be someone who genuinely argues in good faith. By jumping in with the kind of snark that I used, I implied otherwise. Hence the need for an apology.
Hadn’t realized that ‘my bad’ can be taken as a non-apology - certainly not meant so here.
And we’ll see the reciprical climb down when? Henry, buck up and straighten your back. This is unseemly.
Carter is right. Your arguments were perfectly reasonable; his were fatuous. By backing down, you betray everyone who agreed with you and on top of that you betray the process of reasoned debate.
Put another way: show some fucking spine, man. You were right, not him; he should apologise to you and not the other way round.
I wouldn’t describe it as a reciprocal climbdown (while we have exchanged emails since the back-and-forth, they were on the substance of our dispute; this wasn’t in any sense orchestrated), but see here . I can’t see how in any way this is ‘betraying’ anyone. I’m certainly not backing down from disagreeing with him, nor, I would imagine, is he backing down from disagreeing with me. I’m simply saying that I should have expressed my disagreement in a less offensive fashion. If anyone feels betrayed by that, they’re being a bit silly.
Ad hominem elements in an post, even when irrelevant to the thrust of the argument, can lead one to the Temptations of Useful Fallacy.
For instance, one would soon be citing Nobel Prizes in themselves as somehow conferring credence upon particular papers and authors. Is it so ridiculous that a imputation of bad faith in one response might possibly be followed by reliance on reputation in the next? One could be optimistic, but experience and our own remembered errors teach us that eternal vigilance is the cost of intellectual integrity.
An avoidance of the ad hominem might disarm the unwary opponent, tho of course if ad hominem elements were used against you, as in accusations of bias or prejudice, you would be wise to avoid mentioning them, because then you would be descending to your opponents level, and losing your advantage. But it might be dialectically unfair to attempt to buttress your arguments with unspoken appeals to your own good character.
The key insight into dialectic comes from Nietzsche’s honest appraisal of the Greek natural assessment of Socrates, who could never have Truth or Goodness because he was ugly.
If Henry owes The Professor an apology, surely the principle of proportionality dictates that Brian “piss, vinegar…and did I mention piss?” Leiter don sackcloth and ashes immediately.
Well, it’s quite big of you to apologize to him (and nice to see that he did buck expectations by climbing down a bit himself), but while I don’t think you “betrayed” anything per se, I have to say I didn’t see anything particularly wrong with your post. You caught Bainbridge in an egregiously stupid error, and it’s little wonder he was chagrined and defensive, but FWIW I don’t think you were guilty of merely “venting spleen.: You guys did have a real argument, it’s just that Bainbridge lost it (no pun intended).
I never heard of Henry Farrell before I read the thread where he attacked Bainbridge. And I never came to this site. I still think Farrell was wrong about Bainbridge — Bainbridge’s interpretation of Chait was spot-on, as I tried arguing in the other thread (until it got derailed on a related topic).
But this post gives me more respect for Farrell. I still think he was wrong, but now I think he’s at least polite and wrong.
I followed this exchange closely, and as an academic conservative predictably agreed with Professor Bainbridge. However, Henry Farrell’s generous and gracious response on 12/14 was precisely the move towards civil discourse that I am advocating. Everyone who cares about academia has a vested interest in making it a place where reasonable individuals of any political persuasion can engage in spirited but respectful debate—to the benefit of all. Then we truly can speak of hallowed halls!
I applaud Henry’s manners, and, while surprised at it, Bainbridge’s reciprocation.
I’m a little astonished however that there are a few (clearly smart) commentors who felt Farrell’s criticism of Bainbridge at the post linked above was not spot on.
Now, the paucity of data make it possible for people on both sides of the debate to comfortably hold on to some notions - the conservatives can believe that there is something of a left wing conspiracy to keep conservatives out of academia, the liberals can believe that there is not so much as an instance of liberals blocking conservative candidates for jobs in academia.
What should not be a matter for debate however are logic and logical fallacies. That is why, I think, Farrell’s post really shouldn’t have provoked much controversy.
This is what Farrell was correcting:
“[Chaith says] Republicans have cultivated anti-intellectualism.In other words, conservatives are stupid.”
- Bainbridge.
Now, that is simply a logical fallacy.
Whether or not you are conservative or liberal, and whatever you might personally think of the ‘problem’ in academia, this ought to be apparent.
Yes, but as I argued in the other thread, Chait said plenty of other things to support Bainbridge’s characterization. So, while the snippet you quoted may be considered a logical fallacy, I thought his characterization of Chait’s op-ed as a whole was fair.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review