xiphias | There are times that I regret my avoidance of "argument by ethos of position on the Internet" (Reply)

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.