There are times that I regret my avoidance of "argument by ethos of position on the Internet"

[xiphias]

See, I have a general rule. When possible, when arguing on the Internet, I prefer to make my arguments based on facts. I don't like making arguments based on, "Because I said so."

If someone wants to believe me because they know me personally and trust me, that's fine. I don't mind using my "personal ethos", as it were.

(Quick refresher in definitions: Aristotle defined three kinds of arguments used in rhetoric: appeals to emotion ("pathos"), appeals to facts, logic, and scientific method ("logos"), and convincing people of stuff because they trust YOU, personally -- they may not follow the logic themselves, but they trust that you do and aren't leading them wrong ("ethos"))

But I don't like using my "ethos of position". I don't mind when someone else does -- if enegim or rivka said something about how the human mind works, I'd believe them, because, well, that's their professional knowledge. But, if I make an argument about religion, I want to convince people based on my arguments, not "because I teach Hebrew school, that's why."

Which isn't to say that I HAVEN'T, in the past, resorted to "because I teach Hebrew school, that's why" -- specifically in that case where some people were saying idiotic things about how religion works, and I was able to point to a half-dozen religions that DON'T work that way, and they decided that, therefore, Buddhism and Judaism, for instance, weren't religions (sorry, if you definition doesn't fit reality, you're supposed to change your DEFINITION, not REALITY) and I eventually said, "Look, people pay me real, actual money to teach this stuff. They don't pay YOU real, actual money to teach this stuff," and, if I didn't CONVINCE them, I at least shut them up.

But, see, I DO sometimes want to pull rank and certification, and say, "No, sugar DOESN'T kill yeast, and most wines that aren't dessert wines really DON'T have any detectable residual sugar. And sulfur is NOT used to kill yeast to stop the fermentation process (it's used to kill mold while the grapes are growing, and to keep certain types of oxidation from happening in the bottle.)" And just to say, "Look, I'm WSET Intermediate certified -- Pass with Merit -- I took sixteen classroom hours in this stuff. I don't know EVERYTHING, and I certainly still can make dumb errors -- but, on the basics, I probably am pretty good. I really DO know this stuff."

But I don't do that. Because, well, first, I shouldn't HAVE to -- I should be able to convince people by just pointing out the facts. Second, why would they be impressed? Who knows from WSET Intermediate Certification? Why would they know, or care, what that is?

And third -- what if I WAS wrong? If I'm wrong based on the facts, okay, fine, I'm wrong, and I can see it, and I can say "oops" and correct myself, and go on from there.

But being wrong after pulling rank? DAMN, that would be embarrassing. It would not only make ME look bad -- it would make whoever gave me the certification look bad.

I'm willing to risk making myself look like an idiot -- I do it often enough. I'm comfortable looking like an idiot, so long as I can learn from it, and not look like an idiot in the same way, again. (One can always move forward and find new and more creative ways of looking like an idiot.)

But I'd rather not make the WSET look like idiots for giving me the certificate. So I don't try to win arguments by pulling out that piece of paper and waving it around.

'Cause the best thing it would do would make me look like an asshole. And the worst it would do would be to make me look like an idiot, AND an asshole.

Comments

I *wish* my ethos were respected

[happyfunpaul.livejournal.com]

I don't mind when someone else does -- if enegim or rivka said something about how the human mind works, I'd believe them, because, well, that's their professional knowledge.

I don't think I've ever just said "Because I'm the expert," but I would like to sometimes mix logos and ethos. I'd like to think that a Ph.D. in Psychology lends a little more weight to my arguments, in a discussion pertaining to the mind. For example, if someone starts spewing the old saw about "Eskimos have fifty words for snow, while English has only one, and language determines thought," I point out that Yup'ik and Inuit don't have "words" in the same sense as English, that English has a broader vocabulary for snow once you account for that, and, more generally, that the existing evidence supports only a very weak version of the Sapir-Whorf linguistic relativity hypothesis. And I'd like to think that my opinion carries a little extra weight, since I have a Ph.D. and spent many years studying this sort of stuff.

But the truth is, I don't recall it ever happening. Maybe when you're an expert in other topics, people give credence to your training and experience. But I haven't found that to be the case in experimental psychology.

Re: I *wish* my ethos were respected

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I trust your ethos on classroom management. Better than mine, anyway.

And, well, English has TONS of words for snow, anyway: "snow", "blizzard", "drift", "powder", "hardpack", "slush", "freezing drizzle. . ."

Re: I *wish* my ethos were respected

[gilmoure.livejournal.com]

Don't forget: Oh crap, not again! I think it's used somewhere between morning shower and reaching the car.

[cellio]

There is a space between logos and ethos, and it has to do with ability, or willingness, to understand the argument.

Stephen Hawking could explain all of the physics necessary for me to understand what he concludes about physics, but I don't have the right background or the years to learn it. My doctor could explain how this drug works and why it's better than that one but, again, it wouldn't necessarily be a small undertaking. Your case is not that extreme, of course, but "I have relevant expertise" can be a short-hand and doesn't necessarily mean "because I say so". I think the difference is whether you leave open the option for explanation ("I can explain this if you want") or shut it down ("because I say so").

Sometimes, particularly when the stakes are low, I don't need to be convinced; I just need to know that a particular understanding is held by people who probably know what they're talking about (or at least know more than I do). If it's important, that's just a starting point for my own investigation.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Yeah. In an emergency situation, I'm willing to, for the time being, trust the man or woman wearing the firefighter outfit. Just because they have ethos in that situation. If the person wearing the firefighting outfit says, "Go down the ladder outside this window instead of going out the door," I'm willing to respect that, rather than having him or her explain to me the process by which he or she came to the conclusion that the hallway is on fire.

And I trust my doctors. But, again, that's partially because they're the sorts of people who are quite willing to talk about what it is they're doing and why, and the reasons they think it might work, and where they're just guessing -- and when they say things like, "There are two ways we could reasonably proceede from here, and both are reasonably safe and the data support either course, but my gut says that we should do this one, even though I can't REALLY put my finger on why," I'm willing to respect that instinct -- and that's PURE ethos.

[cellio]

Yeah, I trust my doctor because he has demonstrated the ability to explain things to me when I press. Because of that, I am more likely to accept his judgement unchallenged on things I don't think matter as much. Another doctor could give me the exact same advice but drive me away by doing the "I'm the expert; do what I tell you" thing.

Emergencies are a special case anyway; you don't have time to have the discussion.

[ruth-lawrence.livejournal.com]

Very occasionally I've pull rank on totally know-ot-all newbs in the Scene.

I don't like doing it, either.

she-who-was curlygrrrl

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

I'd be satisfied if I could just once persuade my 16-year-old that it's even remotely conceivable that I know more about anything than she does, if for no other reason than that I have 44 years more experience than she does. Sigh.

[yehoshua.livejournal.com]

Maybe it's having worked as a sysadmin in a computer science department, but when people try to pull rank on me nowadays, I tend to push back exceptionally hard. "Oh, you have a Ph.D. Good for you, your mother must be very proud. Are you then, cherry picking research findings to support your argument while totally dismissing contradictory evidence, and in fact to bolster whatever cockamamie line of research you're currently pursuing, possibly only submitting to journals you already know will review your work favorably? No? Prove it. And stay away from that computer, your Ph.D. means you're just going to break it."

<grumble>

Anyway, the two biggest problems I've seen with rank pullers in my own industry is cherry picking and an utterly mystifying belief that confirmation bias doesn't effect the rank puller. Having done no research, I can but speculate, but I suspect this would also be true in other walks of life as well, and I'm always loathe to pull rank because I think it's really hard to account for these factors (the latter more than the former).

And don't get me started on rank-pullers in cycling.

[gilmoure.livejournal.com]

Heh. I did college tech support. All my brilliant idiots. Sigh. Trying to explain to the comp-sci prof why Macs use sudo instead of root was a great exercise in patience and not showing my WTF Mr. Spock eye brow.

[gilmoure.livejournal.com]

Because I spent 125 points on Jack-of-all-Trades, I can not legally and morally make a definite statement on anything. At best I can say that I really, really, REALLY think X is Y. Usually, I make sure to preface everything with a 'usually' or a 'it's likely'. Keeps the ethos cops off my ass.

Unfortunately, critical thinking is not well practiced in the world

[(Anonymous)]

I'm happy to have you pull rank anytime, partly because I know you're the type of person who wouldn't unless it really matters. Plus 'cause you're smart and you are capable - even driven - to think critically.

But I just wanted to add a tangent to point you at a possibly interesting blog, wherein I'm sure it's author would complain about the grammar of this comment.

http://www.thegrammarvandal.com/

- The Admiral

[baratron.livejournal.com]

Once again, you demonstrate why you're one of the wisest people I've ever met on the internet. Wisdom isn't just about knowing a lot - it's about knowing where your own knowledge stops, and where your boundaries are, and what things you're willing to argue about.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but "wisest person on the Internet" is kind of like "tallest person who played a Nelwyn in Willow."