Using the Reductio | Postmodernism

Written by Douglas Wilson

Friday, 06 May 2011 01:35

A friend sent me this critical review of Pearcey's Saving Leonardo. I have not yet finished Leonardo, so I will not say a whole lot about that. But I did notice a flaw in the critique/review that is a very common mistake in debates like this. I have noted it many times, and I think it is being done in response to Pearcey.

If postmodernists and atheists and assorted unbelievers are allowed to dictate to us what they believe at every stage of their argument, then they can have the privilege of straightening out every crinkle as they go on. One kind of Christian who engages with them wants to take their statements at face value all along the way. Another kind (Pearcey and me, for instance) want to take certain statements they make and argue from those statements to certain particular and logical conclusions, conclusions which that person would not want to own.

Because they don't want to own that conclusion, they then charge us with misrepresenting them, when actually we are representing them, better than they themselves do.

So, for example, Christopher Hitchens is an irrationalist who wants to maintain that he is a rationalist. I want show that he is an irrationalist, while the advocates of soft engagement want to treat him as a rationalist.

Another way of saying this is that Pearcey understands how a reductio works.

Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites

Comments

Only registered users can write comments!

Gianni

Friday, May 06, 2011 3:50 am

I love this. Thank you.

Jane Dunsworth

Friday, May 06, 2011 6:48 am

I agree with this, and I agree that using the reductio is a great way to address the merits of an argument, but I think it's important to make the distinction between a reduction as a useful dissection of a position, and an intransigent accusation that the reductio means you actually believe the absurdity, regardless of what your confession actually is. Seems to me some people around here have been on the receiving end of that one. :confused:

RFB	Friday, May 06, 2011 9:05 am

Ma'am,

I think that sincerely wrong is still...wrong.

When one sits on an airplane (by choice) that is going to Detroit, then unless that person disembarks the plane (or barring an unscheduled landing), he is going to Detroit, regardless of what he "actually" believes.

Jordan Srnec

Friday, May 06, 2011 8:32 am

Surely if that review is correct that Pearcey critiques postmodernism without once citing a postmodernist, the reader not already familiar with postmodernism could have nothing to gain? It's fine to show Hitchens that, contra himself, he is an irrationalist, but you'd need to show me Hitchens first to show me that. The reviewer seems to be saying that Pearcey does not actually show us what the postmodernists say, so how can she show us that what they say is wrong?

Jane Dunsworth

Friday, May 06, 2011 10:10 am

RFB, the point isn't about being sincere, it's that it's possible to be wrong in one of your beliefs, wrong about the implications of that belief, and right about something else even though that is logically inconsistent. The assumption of "the implication of your belief is this therefore you believe this" is the wholly unfounded idea that humans are consistently logical. Why we should use such an obviously false premise about human nature as a standard for judging others is something I have never been able to figure out.

Beliefs are not like airplane rides -- it is not possible both to be on an airplane, and not to be on that airplane. It is entirely possible to believe two incongruent things. Why would it not be?

Robert Seward

Friday, May 06, 2011 9:57 pm

Quote:

t is not possible both to be on an airplane, and not to be on that airplane.

Why did I suddenly think of the theory of Schroddinger's Cat?

Jane Dunsworth

Friday, May 06, 2011 3:44 pm

But as I said, this is not to criticize the use of reductio to demolish someone's position. It's to say that this kind of thing is unfair and even irresponsible:

A: You believe X, Y, and Z, therefore logically you deny justification by faith.

B: I disagree with your analysis, and most importantly, I affirm justification by faith with every part of my being, and if you can ever find an instance where I have denied it or taught anything different, I'd be glad to see your evidence.

A: But you believe X, Y, and Z, so therefore it doesn't matter what you confess, what you write, and what you've taught your whole life, you actually deny it.

That's what I'm arguing against. A should continue to press the point that X, Y, and Z are incongruent with JBFA (at least until he is persuaded otherwise) but he should not insist that B denies it when he clearly confesses it and there is no actual evidence that he denies it.

Robert Seward

Friday, May 06, 2011 10:02 pm

I think there is a lot of merit in your argument Jane. There are things that I believe that are not in line with where I attend church. That doesn't mean that I in any way am renouncing the Five Solas, but the differences do occasionally cause friction.

Charles Long

Saturday, May 07, 2011 3:13 pm

Jane,

If what you're saying is "These are the dangers of using this kind of argument," as in "This is why wisdom and discretion must be used when employing this kind of argument," then I totally agree with you, and with the dangers you've identified. But (and you may not be saying this, but) if you're saying "this is why we must not ever employ this kind of argument," then I respectfully disagree. Jesus and Paul used it, and probably others in scripture as well.

Jane Dunsworth

Sunday, May 08, 2011 12:38 pm

Charles,

The first case is exactly what I'm saying. I'm not even saying that it's something we need to be overly careful with. The error I'm concerned about doesn't seem to be all that hard to avoid, and may not even be an actual pitfall in using reductio so much as a justification for accusing people of things -- an almost willful abuse of the method for uncharitable purposes. I've just seen it done enough that I thought it might be worth reminding people that it is not a fair way to use it.

Gianni

Sunday, May 08, 2011 3:44 pm

Jane, you raise a good point. I agree with you regarding what I believe to be your main concern, that through the reductio we can't determine what a person believes, affirms or denies. In order to determine that, we need to ask him.

But I think there is some confusion here.

"The assumption of "the implication of your belief is this therefore you believe this" is the wholly unfounded idea that humans are consistently logical."

You are right. It should go like this: "the implication of your belief is this, therefore you should believe this". It's about what beliefs are and aren't logically legitimate, given a set of other beliefs. The goal is not to prove what the other person believes, but what he should also believe. The goal is not to show what he is or isn't saying, but what he can or cannot afford saying.

Now I think that in the sentence I quoted above you are assuming that the reductio is sound. You are saying that, given a logically sound reductio, it does not follow that a person necessarily believes what the reductio says he should believe. After all, perhaps this person is just inconsistent.

But Jane, that is the whole point. With the reductio we do want to show that this other person is inconsistent. If we succeed, we have won the debate. He cannot legitimately defend himself by saying, "Ok, I may be inconsistent -- so what?" But you make it sound like that would be a valid defense.

You will tell me, "But look at Douglas Wilson. They use the reductio against him to "show" that he "denies" (or "should" deny) sola fide."

However, Wilson does not defend himself with an appeal to human frailty. He does not say "Ok, I may be inconsistent -- so what?" He does two things. He insists that he affirms sola fide, and he goes after them to show that their reductio is faulty.

This is because the reductio can be used improperly in many ways. There might be an equivocation on a term, a false dilemma, a begging of the question, and so on. There's no guarantee that just because someone is doing the reductio, he is doing it right.

Jane Dunsworth

Sunday, May 08, 2011 6:30 pm

Gianni, I entirely agree.

I'm just saying that an effective reductio is not the same as a proven charge of heresy against someone who gives no evidence of "consistency" as the reducer defines it, and every evidence that his actual testimony and teaching is orthodox.

Notice in my example, the guy starts off with, "I disagree with your analysis." I'm assuming that it will eventually be demonstrated that Mr. B. has a sound reason for not believing that the reductio actually applies. (I admit I completely failed at making that clear. :confused:

) I just believe that when it comes to matters of bringing a charge against someone, actual evidence of heresy is what counts, not how effective a reductio is, or how good or bad the accused is at refuting it.

That is, someone making the reductio argument should be able to remain completely convinced that his own argument holds, and still be able to say, "But I have not shown that the man is actually teaching heresy." Ideally, the accused should be able to show why the other guy is wrong, but that doesn't necessarily mean the other guy has to buy that, in order to be wise enough to know that his effective argument doesn't equal a proven charge.

Does that make sense?

Gianni

Tuesday, May 10, 2011 4:22 am

Jane, sorry for the delay. Yes, that makes perfect sense. No, you didn't completely fail at anything. I actually read you wrong.

"Notice in my example, the guy starts off with, "I disagree with your analysis." "

Yes, I did notice that, and that's why my beef was not with that Mr. B guy. As I said, I was after the guy, call him Mr. C, who said "The assumption of "the implication of your belief is this therefore you believe this" is the wholly unfounded idea that humans are consistently logical. "

This appeal to the human propensity for inconsistency is a good argument against the idea that through the reductio we can safely determine what a man believes, affirms or denies. My point has been that (for the reasons I listed in my longer reply) it is not a satisfactory line of defense to get ourselves off the hook when we are on the receiving end of the reductio. Somehow I kept on reading you to mean the latter, when I suddenly realized you really did mean the former.

Beats me how I misunderstood this particular sentence, since in your posts here you are literally talking about nothing else all the time, and you are really not saying anything different here either, and I had no problems following (and agreeing with) your point throughout, except here.

Well, it was a mind-twisting experience. You should have seen my face when I realized that there was actually nothing wrong with anything you said. It was also good to know that you even agree with the stuff I have written in my "critique" of your post. Oh well, have a good day!

About the Proprietor

Family Blogroll

Father
Sister Heather
Avuncular
Femina

Nate
Shadow Shroud
Nephew
Amoretti

About the Proprietor

Family Blogroll

Blogroll

Pastors Blogroll