The objective of this research project is to describe the quality of Dr. Peterson’s writings and as objectively as possible, given each essay a score on a scale from 0 to 6. The scale is taken from Paul Graham’s seminal essay, “
How to Disagree.”
I encourage you to read the actual essay but in summary, the seven rankings are:
0 Points: Name Calling. This is the lowest form of disagreement, and includes anything from shrieking “echo-chamber” to eruditely pronouncing, “The author is a self-important dilettante.”
1 Point: Ad Hominem. This category of argument is especially important because of the frequency of the allegation. Quoting Paul Graham, An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:
“
Of course he would say that. He's a senator.“This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?
“Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.”
2 Points: Responding to tone: Responding to tone means you criticize
the way somebody says something, rather than the ideas themselves.
3 Points: Contradiction: This is the lowest level that actually deals with ideas. However, it merely states the contradictory opinion, but doesn’t offer any evidence.
4 Points: Counterargument: Counterargument is offering a contradicting opinion, supported by reason and evidence.
5 Points: Refutation: To refute an argument, you need to quote or paraphrase the person you are critiquing, and then provide evidence for why it is wrong. “While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.”
6 Points: Refuting the Central Point: This is the way to
soundly discredit something in a detailed review. You have to identify the central point, and refute it with evidence. “Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of
ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.”
To be continued….
