00100	               TOWARDS AN INTELLECTUALLY HONEST STYLE

00200	
00300		I  think  that  current  debate  on  social  issues  is  less
00400	effective at getting at the truth than it would be if  certain  rules
00500	of intellectual honesty were adopted by writers, expected by readers,
00600	and enforced by editors.  As a partial  step  in  this  direction,  I
00700	advocate  and promise to use in my own writing the following order of
00800	presentation:
00900	
01000		1. The view that the writer is putting forward.
01100	
01200		2. The reasons for supporting this view.
01300	
01400		3. A discussion of other views on the subject.
01500	
01600		4.  Ad hominem remarks that account for other views according
01700	to the interests or psychology of the writer.
01800	
01900		This permits the reader to know what is being proposed before
02000	hearing the reasons; he may agree for reasons of his own.  Ad hominem
02100	remarks should be last because they often come to pointing out to the
02200	reader that he and the writer have common enemies and thus are  often
02300	just  appeals  to  prejudice.  The reasons why the writer's views are
02400	true should be separated from reasons  why  other  views  are  false.
02500	Otherwise,  the  reader is often asked to accept the writers views on
02600	the basis of a refutation of other peoples' views.  This is dangerous
02700	because  either the other person's views may be incorrectly presented
02800	or they and the view advocated may not exhaust the possibilities.
02900	
03000		I don't know  any  explicit  discussions  of  what  order  of
03100	presentation  is most conducive to honest writing, but I can make the
03200	following observations:
03300	
03400		1. Writing in the physical and  biological  sciences  usually
03500	follows  the order I advocate.  In fact, ad hominem remarks are often
03600	completely excluded.
03700	
03800		2. The style is particularly hard to follow  in  essays  that
03900	start  out  as  literary  criticism  and  then  go  on to express the
04000	critic's own views.  If one  has  views  of  independent  importance,
04100	critical essays should not be the main medium of their expression.
04200	
04300		3.  I  don't  think  ad  hominem  remarks  can  be completely
04400	excluded from discussions of political and social topics, because  it
04500	is  legitimate  to  show  that  other parties to a discussion are not
04600	disinterested if this is true.  On the other hand, it is best to have
04700	a  case  for one's own views so strong that it doesn't need that kind
04800	of support, since showing one's adversary to have  a  bias  does  not
04900	prove that he is wrong.
05000