perm filename STYLE.ESS[ESS,JMC]2 blob sn#106105 filedate 1974-06-10 generic text, type C, neo UTF8
COMMENT āŠ—   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	               TOWARDS AN INTELLECTUALLY HONEST STYLE
C00006 ENDMK
CāŠ—;
               TOWARDS AN INTELLECTUALLY HONEST STYLE


	I  think  that  current  debate  on  social  issues  is  less
effective at getting at the truth than it would be if  certain  rules
of intellectual honesty were adopted by writers, expected by readers,
and enforced by editors.  As a partial  step  in  this  direction,  I
advocate  and promise to use in my own writing the following order of
presentation:

	1. The view that the writer is putting forward.

	2. The reasons for supporting this view.

	3. A discussion of other views on the subject.

	4.  Ad hominem remarks that account for other views according
to the interests or psychology of the writer.

	This permits the reader to know what is being proposed before
hearing the reasons; he may agree for reasons of his own.  Ad hominem
remarks should be last because they often come to pointing out to the
reader that he and the writer have common enemies and thus are  often
just  appeals  to  prejudice.  The reasons why the writer's views are
true should be separated from reasons  why  other  views  are  false.
Otherwise,  the  reader is often asked to accept the writers views on
the basis of a refutation of other peoples' views.  This is dangerous
because  either the other person's views may be incorrectly presented
or they and the view advocated may not exhaust the possibilities.

	I don't know  any  explicit  discussions  of  what  order  of
presentation  is most conducive to honest writing, but I can make the
following observations:

	1. Writing in the physical and  biological  sciences  usually
follows  the order I advocate.  In fact, ad hominem remarks are often
completely excluded.

	2. The style is particularly hard to follow  in  essays  that
start  out  as  literary  criticism  and  then  go  on to express the
critic's own views.  If one  has  views  of  independent  importance,
critical essays should not be the main medium of their expression.

	3.  I  don't  think  ad  hominem  remarks  can  be completely
excluded from discussions of political and social topics, because  it
is  legitimate  to  show  that  other parties to a discussion are not
disinterested if this is true.  On the other hand, it is best to have
a  case  for one's own views so strong that it doesn't need that kind
of support, since showing one's adversary to have  a  bias  does  not
prove that he is wrong.