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