International Law

Disagreement is Disrespect

Image via Wikipedia

Robin Hanson's posts at Overcoming Bias often intrigue me.  He appears to be engaging, perhaps deliberately, in what the philosopher Grice called flouting conversational implicatures. 

Just read this.

"When you knowingly disagree with someone you are judging them to be less rational than you, at least on that topic. 

(Judging them less informed or experienced by itself can't create disagreement.) 

It might be only a minor disrespect, if you think this disagreement suggests little about whether you'd disagree with them elsewhere. 

But disagreement is disrespect, nonetheless."

Now, I don't know about you, but this is a pretty hard conclusion to either agree with or disagree with.

If you merely said "I disagree", you might be implying "You jerk, Hanson - and no, I haven't stopped beating my wife."

Personally, I disagree with this conclusion, but love the idea that it expresses.

I love the idea for what it shows: statements make truth claims, but aslo express other sentiments that are not irrelevant to the truth claim.

This is a fancy, but not merely fancy, way of saying that it matters what you say, and how you say it.

In conclusion, I disagree with Hanson, but I am very amused by his conclusion. Have I disrespected Hanson by disagreeing and also being amused?

I suspect not, otherwise why take the time to reply? 

Full post as published by Misleading Advertising Law on September 05, 2008 (boomark / email).