Although we’re pretty good at identifying a terrible argument when we hear it, we’re often persuaded by weak arguments. What’s a weak argument, and why does it matter? Let’s dig deeper:
Does it matter if an argument is weak?
If you care about being right, the strength of an argument really does matter. The problem with certain weak arguments is that they can be very persuasive. We’ve seen people talk about someone getting fired as being “cancel culture.” On the surface, it looks like the person is making a point, but they’re not. Calling something cancel culture doesn’t tell me anything about whether the person who was fired actually deserved to be canned.1 The same thing goes for people who dismiss ideas as right-wing or ReTrumplican. Just because something might be a political talking point doesn’t mean that they’re necessarily wrong. People will agree with you because you’ve tagged the opposition with a label that they also hate, but you haven’t really done anything to show that you’re right.
The Hierarchy of Disagreement
Paul Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement is a useful tool for civil engagement. It also helps identify weak arguments. The hierarchy looks like this:
At the bottom of the pyramid, you have name-calling. It’s a type of argument that you see frequently, but it also happens to be the weakest type of argument. Calling something “cancel culture”? That’s name-calling, y’all.
The top of the argument hierarchy is refuting the central point, which is the most effective and the rarest of arguments. What this means is that you have found and presented relevant and reliable evidence that disproves the major point the other person is making. It’s like sinking their battleship.
Merely contradicting someone is pretty weak
Name-calling and ad hominem attacks are pretty easy to identify as being weak arguments. Responding to tone and contradiction are still weak, but they aren’t quite as widely identified as being weak arguments.
For an argument to be strong, it has to challenge an important point. Responding to tone3 doesn’t address the point and mere contradiction doesn’t give any explanation for why the point is wrong.
Refuting something that’s not the main point is pretty weak, too
Sometimes, people will try to make a point by responding in volume rather than responding with precision. Instead of going after the main point, they try to rack up little victories on smaller points. And for some arguments, those little victories may matter. Most of the time, the nit-picking isn’t doing much to contradict the main point.
So, the goal when you’re reading or thinking critically is to see if the main point is being refuted or if the points are further down Graham’s pyramid.
The importance of identifying logical fallacies
Logical fallacies can usually be put into the different levels of Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement. Knowing the separate fallacies will help you identify where in the hierarchy a particular point falls.
Putting the tools together
Once you know how to explain why an argument is weak, it becomes easier to identify weak arguments in the wild.
Key Takeaways:
- Identify name-calling and ad hominem attacks
- Don’t be distracted by attacks on tone and nit-picking
- Mere contradiction isn’t enough because it doesn’t actually refute the main point
- Go straight to the main premise and try to refute it
- Going one step further: Saying something is cancel culture is presuming that “cancel culture” is a bad thing. And that’s debatable. And I’m not even getting into the fact that “cancel culture” is a label that doesn’t have a particularly clear definition. That’s a post for another day… ↩
- Image Text: A multicolor pyramid with the following levels:
-Bottom: Name-calling, sounds something like, “You are an idiot.”
-Second from bottom: Ad hominem, attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument
-Third from bottom: Responding to tone, criticizes the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument
-Fourth from bottom: Contradiction, states the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence
-Third from top: Counterargument, contradicts and then backs it up with reasoning and/or supporting evidence
-Second from top: Refutation, finds the mistake and explains why it’s mistaken using quotes
-Top of pyramid: Refuting the central point, explicitly refutes the central point ↩ - And correcting grammar and spelling is tone-policing, folks. Someone can have atrocious spelling but still have a valid point. ↩
