# Argumentation versus Criticizing with Kindness

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/argumentation-versus-criticizing-with-kindness/1977>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Created:** [October 2, 2018, 5:54pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/argumentation-versus-criticizing-with-kindness/1977 "2018-10-02T17:54:42Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 17\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [October 2, 2018, 5:54pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/argumentation-versus-criticizing-with-kindness/1977/1 "2018-10-02T17:54:42Z")

</div>

Argumentation is a skill, and most of us here are pretty good at it. We’ve honed our skills with years of practice in online forums. You may have seen this infographic describibng the heirarchy of argumentation before; it’s a good one. If you want to WIN an argument, this is the way to go:

 ![ArgumentationPyramid](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/2X/6/6dfeef3d14cbf280d9953a772a24aa94e6b31d0c.jpeg)[-source](https://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/how-to-disagree-well-7-of-the-best-and-worst-ways-to-argue)

BUT that is the rest of the Internet. Here at **Peaceful Science** we are trying to do something different, something better, where we _talk **to** each other_ rather than _talk **at** each other._ And for that _ **argumentation is not enough**._

Criticism is harder than argument. It requires listening, understanding, and admitting to points of agreement (common ground) _before_ offering the critical comments. **Daniel Dennett** puts it like this:

> [@](#):
>
> How to compose a successful critical commentary:
> 
> 1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
> 2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
> 3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
> 4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.  
> [-source](https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism)

My goal here at **PS** is to encourage this sort of kind criticism, rather than the [endless cycle of pointless argument](http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Brockian_Ultra-Cricket) we see in so many other forums. I realize just how hard that can be, the temptation to jump ahead to “YOU ARE WRONG” can be overwhelming. But that approach gains nothing, and we really need to work on understand each first, and put any wrongness second.

This is my appeal to the more … _firmly opinionated_ … members of this forum: Please try harder to understand, and less on being right. I think you will find the satisfaction of a sincere discussion is far better than to momentary victory of refuting a _stupid numpty._ Give it a try, please!

> **[How to Criticize with Kindness: Philosopher Daniel Dennett on the Four Steps...](https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/)**
>
> “Just how charitable are you supposed to be when criticizing the views of an opponent?”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [October 2, 2018, 7:09pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/argumentation-versus-criticizing-with-kindness/1977/2 "2018-10-02T19:09:35Z")

</div>

This is a really important post I hope that we all read.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [October 2, 2018, 10:35pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/argumentation-versus-criticizing-with-kindness/1977/3 "2018-10-02T22:35:06Z")

</div>

We need to start a fight - that always attracts lots of attention.

Speaking of fight, where is @Michael_Callen when I need him!?! 😆

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Michael\_Callen](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/michael_callen/32/897_2.png) [@Michael\_Callen](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Michael_Callen)\
**Post date:** [October 2, 2018, 10:40pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/argumentation-versus-criticizing-with-kindness/1977/4 "2018-10-02T22:40:30Z")

</div>

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> Speaking of fight, where is @Michael_Callen when I need him!?! 😆

I’m here Dan and ready to play the role of the jerk that everyone hates. Born for it!

Hahaha… thanks for checking on me and helping me to find a special purpose.

\*\*\* Seriously, @Dan_Eastwood @swamidass, what a timely post. Thanks for calling it out!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/2X/6/6b7bf72453a5c60b0919b6b89a27dc18bc52382c.png) [@system](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/system)\
**Post date:** [November 2, 2019, 5:07pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/argumentation-versus-criticizing-with-kindness/1977/5 "2019-11-02T17:07:22Z")

</div>



---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [November 18, 2019, 9:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/argumentation-versus-criticizing-with-kindness/1977/6 "2019-11-18T21:37:41Z")

</div>

I’m think I’ll let the automatic bumps stay for this one - some people clearly haven’t read it yet!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Robert\_Byers1](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/robert_byers1/32/5158_2.png) [@Robert\_Byers1](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Robert_Byers1)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2019, 7:00am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/argumentation-versus-criticizing-with-kindness/1977/7 "2019-11-20T07:00:59Z")

</div>

Yup! its everywhere.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![structureoftruth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4bbf92/32.png) [@structureoftruth](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/structureoftruth)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2019, 1:56pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/argumentation-versus-criticizing-with-kindness/1977/8 "2019-11-20T13:56:36Z")

</div>

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> I’m think I’ll let the automatic bumps stay for this one - some people clearly haven’t read it yet!

Thanks for making this post, and yes, let’s keep the automatic bumps on it!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [September 23, 2020, 6:41pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/argumentation-versus-criticizing-with-kindness/1977/9 "2020-09-23T18:41:16Z")

</div>

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> ![](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/3X/5/0/50f9fcb6fed16462e4cb856b8941b95898ebc705.png) [Brain Pickings – 28 Mar 14](https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/)
> 
> ![](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/2X/c/cf6ac8e2846602c6567b9065c60ed160b826bbf1.jpeg)
> 
> ### [How to Criticize with Kindness: Philosopher Daniel Dennett on the Four Steps…](https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/)
> 
> “Just how charitable are you supposed to be when criticizing the views of an opponent?”

@Dan_Eastwood

Daniel Dennett was so charitably persuasive during one of his lectures on the lack of “real Free Will” - - he managed to convince me that the point of believing in a deity was to better invoke the plausibility of Free Will!!!

Pretty good charity on his part - - though, of course, the opposite of his intentions!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [September 23, 2020, 6:49pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/argumentation-versus-criticizing-with-kindness/1977/10 "2020-09-23T18:49:42Z")

</div>

@Dan_Eastwood

Doesn’t Dennett look just a bit like Moses ? Or maybe more the father of Moses… who doesn’t get much appreciation during the last few millenia.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [September 23, 2020, 7:09pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/argumentation-versus-criticizing-with-kindness/1977/11 "2020-09-23T19:09:15Z")

</div>

Dunno, I never met either one. Some resemblance to Charlton Heston tho! 😀

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Chad\_the\_Layman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ba8739/32.png) [@Chad\_the\_Layman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Chad_the_Layman)\
**Post date:** [May 2, 2021, 12:04am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/argumentation-versus-criticizing-with-kindness/1977/12 "2021-05-02T00:04:52Z")

</div>

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> Criticism is harder than argument. It requires listening, understanding, and admitting to points of agreement (common ground) _before_ offering the critical comments. **Daniel Dennett** puts it like this:
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > How to compose a successful critical commentary:
> > 
> > > 1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
> > > 2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
> > > 3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
> > > 4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.  
> > > [-source](https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism)
> 
> My goal here at **PS** is to encourage this sort of kind criticism,

Love this Dan! I want to take a shot at modeling responses after this list! Sounds so time consuming, though!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AlanFox](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/alanfox/32/3495_2.png) [@AlanFox](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/AlanFox)\
**Post date:** [May 2, 2021, 11:30am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/argumentation-versus-criticizing-with-kindness/1977/13 "2021-05-02T11:30:46Z")

</div>

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> y goal here at **PS** is to encourage this sort of kind criticism, rather than the [endless cycle of pointless argument](http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Brockian_Ultra-Cricket) we see in so many other forums.

If you would accept a little constructive criticism, I think the aim, the strategy, is admirable. The tactics don’t always align with the strategy in my view. If I had to sum it up in one word, it would be **consistency**. The rules of engagement are very unclear to me and I think I’m a fairly regular reader. Whether a thread has pre-moderation or not seems capricious. The closing of threads also. Most odd is the comment time-interval limit. I’m very easy to irritate so I may not be typical but discovering that my comment will stay in limbo for an indeterminate period before appearing _after I’ve posted it_ or being obliged to wait 4 hours between comments when there are [replies needing answers](https://xkcd.com/386/) is not conducive to discussion.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [May 2, 2021, 3:52pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/argumentation-versus-criticizing-with-kindness/1977/14 "2021-05-02T15:52:27Z")

</div>

These are good points. It is hard to maintain consistency, and I can see how this creates confusion.

I do not know the solution to this.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [May 2, 2021, 5:41pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/argumentation-versus-criticizing-with-kindness/1977/15 "2021-05-02T17:41:28Z")

</div>

> [@Chad\_the\_Layman](#):
>
> Sounds so time consuming, though!

It is time consuming, but less so than a discussion where people are talking past each other. :

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [May 2, 2021, 5:51pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/argumentation-versus-criticizing-with-kindness/1977/16 "2021-05-02T17:51:24Z")

</div>

> [@AlanFox](#):
>
> If you would accept a little constructive criticism, I think the aim, the strategy, is admirable. The tactics don’t always align with the strategy in my view. If I had to sum it up in one word, it would be **consistency**.

Perhaps we lean on the comment timer a bit too much. It’s a great device to cool-off a hot topic, but 4-hours might be too much. I think the only time I set a 4-hour timer was to stop a thread from going full train-wreck when I didn’t have time to deal with it any other way.

Consistency problems usually mean the mods are communicating enough - I’ll keep bugging people. 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AlanFox](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/alanfox/32/3495_2.png) [@AlanFox](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/AlanFox)\
**Post date:** [May 2, 2021, 7:44pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/argumentation-versus-criticizing-with-kindness/1977/17 "2021-05-02T19:44:23Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> I do not know the solution to this.

Well, maybe pre-moderation applied routinely is unnecessary. Allow people to either respect the idea of reasonable dialogue and rein in transgressors as necessary. The problem I’ve found elsewhere is people make their own assessments and either stay or walk.