Aiken & Talisse destroying democracy

A democracy is a political system where a large class of the country's people chose the country's leaders and thus decide important matters of policy.

Democracies come in various flavors and have different political institutions some of which are not government institutions in any sense- e.g. political parties. 

Aikin & Talisse ask 'does democracy exist?' in 3 quarks. 

We tend to think of democracy as a set of governmental institutions. 

This is not the case. We think of it as a place where the people will fuck up any 'governmental institutions' which try to fuck them over.

We see it as a political order characterized by open elections,

we prefer a secret ballot and strict laws preventing foreigners with hostile intentions or dangerous criminals running for office 

 constitutional constraints,

but a democracy can change or scrap the constitution.

 the rule of law,

there is a trade off between the rule of law and democratic decision making

 freedom of speech,

again, there is a trade off here. It is unlikely that a democracy will really have unrestricted freedom of speech. At the very least, the 'rule of law' won't prevent some speech acts being severely punished.

 a free press, 

and free love and rainbows shooting out of the asses of unicorns 

an independent judiciary, 

and virile husbands and beautiful wives and kids cute enough to star in a Disney movie

and so on. This makes good sense. These institutions indeed loom large in our political lives.

No they don't. The truth is we don't want the judiciary to be too independent or the press to be too free or desire 'constitutional constraints' which prevent needful action in the face of exigent circumstances. The point about democracy is that a leader accused of having done wrong is deemed to have done right if he gets re-elected. The Condorcet Jury theorem may be mentioned in this context as may Christ's saying 'Ye are as Gods'. The electorate is the ultimate ecclesia which decides what is true and what is right. 

However, political institutions differ considerably from one purportedly democratic society to the next.

Political institutions differ from one district or even one neighborhood to the next in any give polity. I live on a street which the Tories didn't bother to canvass even a decade ago. Now it is Labor which is afraid to show its face. 

 Voting procedures, representation schemes, conceptions of free speech, and judicial arrangements are not uniform across societies that are widely regarded as democratic. In some of these countries, voting is required by law and military service is mandatory. In others, these acts are voluntary. Some democratic countries have distinct speech restrictions, others have different and blurrier boundaries. And the ancient Athenians appointed their representatives to the Boule by lot, instead of by vote. Given these variations, how can these societies all be democracies?

The Greeks gave the answer. If voting by a large section of the population determines political outcomes then we have a democracy. If a monarch decides things- that is monarchy. If a bunch of rich dudes run things- that is oligarchy. If the Army, or particular political formation with coercive powers, runs things then we speak of Dictatorship. 

We may say 'marriage is a bond of mutual affection, respect and reciprocal care between two or more people'. But we recognize that plenty of marriages exist where there is little affection and no mutual respect. 

This leads to the thought that although certain institutional forms are characteristic of democracies, 

This simply isn't the case. 'Institutional forms' are determined by ideographic circumstances. A small city-state may hold elections involving a simple show of hands. A vast densely populated country like India may hold elections over an extended period. 

democracy itself should be identified with the kind of society those institutions realize. 

No it shouldn't. 'Kind of society' is multiply realizable. A benevolent dictatorship may create a society which looks as free and secure and affluent as a well functioning democracy with good leadership. 

We hence can see how two societies with distinct constitutions nevertheless can be democratic.

Just as we see that not all other people are bastards even if their Daddy is not married to our Mummy. It could be that he has a wifey of his own who is not our Daddy's cum dumpster. 

This prompts the obvious question: What kind of society is a democracy?

One where the votes of a large class of the population can change who holds power within the medium term.

Abraham Lincoln’s depiction at Gettysburg may seem a good place to start. He identified democracy as government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Yet this goes only so far. For one thing, it retains the idea that democracy is centrally a mode of government.

as opposed to what? A mode of space travel?

 More importantly, it doesn’t specify what it means for government to be by the people. 

The 'Spoils System' operated till 1883. After an election, a lot of political offices changed hands. Government was 'by the people' not professional civil servants. 

As Lincoln’s remark stands, it may allow a society to count as democratic even though benevolent oligarchs, or some other subset of the citizenry, runs it. 

For a polity to count as being sovereign it must be the case that a subset of citizens run it. If the place has no government then it is a terra nullis and has no sovereignty. If the power of any subset of citizens can be taken away by a large class of voters then democracy obtains.

 Consider this against the fact that there are many democracies with appallingly low voting rates.

And there are many marriages with appallingly low rates of sexual intimacy. So what? I'm under a lot of stress at work, you know. 

What’s missing from Lincoln’s account is the idea that a democracy is a social order accountable to all the people. 

Because no form of government is accountable to all the people. Babies in particular face tremendous obstacles to holding high officials to account for their refusal to get off the TV box so the cartoons can come on.

In a democracy, the people not only rule themselves; they rule themselves as equal partners.

Nonsense! They pay for governance and use their votes to get rid of administrations which they feel aren't delivering value for money. When I hire a guy to drain the septic tank, I don't expect to be an equal partner in the labor. 

 No citizen is another’s political subordinate, master, or overlord.

This is only the case when it comes to casting your vote. However, as an employee of a political party or a holder of political office, you may indeed be a subordinate. However, you can resign if you don't like your 'overlord'.  

 In short, a democracy is a society in which people govern themselves as political equals.

In which case there is no government. No territorial sovereignty exists. This is a terra nullis. Only if these sovereign individuals can individually, or without any great coordinative effort, repel any invasion or insurrection would this state of affairs continue. However, arguably, there is no Society here. There is simply a terrain with a population. We might say 'Robinson Crusoe' governs himself'. But we may equally say 'Crusoe is married to himself.' 'Crusoe is the autocephalic Pope of his own creed.' But we are merely talking nonsense. 

It is worth emphasizing that political equality does not mean that every citizen is identical or as equally admirable.

Two people may be said to be 'politically equal' if they have the same power to affect political outcomes. Under agent heterogeneity, 'Shapley values' will differ. But the underlying dynamics is likely to be discontinuous.

 Rather, our political equality means that we participate in the activities of collective self-government as equals. 

No it does not. Suppose I give you a hair cut and then you give me an equally good hair cut. We may be considered equals in haircutting. But when hair is being cut, we don't participate in that haircutting as equals. One is being served. The other is serving. 

True, we may decide to set up an elaborate system of cameras and mirrors and devise a way for one of us to hold one arm of the scissors and the other to hold the other arm and then we might hold a long and balanced discussion before going ahead and cutting each hair. In this case we might be said to have equally participated in the act of collective self-haircutting. But the results would be horrible. We would reject any such activity. Equally, we would tell Aikin & Talisse to fuck off if they suggested we 'self-govern' anything at all according to their stupid criterion. 

We each get to make up our own minds about political affairs. 

Or not.

We don’t merely get an equal say in political decision-making; we’re entitled to one.
No. We neither get an equal say nor are we entitled to one. Why? The result would be horrible. We should tell Aikin & Talisse to fuck off while beating and imprisoning nutters who try to storm the Legislature so as to 'get an equal say' in its decisions.

This definition helps to make sense of why institutions can vary across democratic societies.

No. Institutions vary because societies and their histories vary. No entitlement for nutters or nutty Professors to 'have an equal say' is involved. 

 There are different ways to structure a society of self-governing equals. 

But they are incompossible with any life form which evolved by natural selection.

Thus, democracy can take various institutional forms.

Institutional forms are irrelevant.  What matters is whether it is or is not the case that a large class of voters can grant or withdraw significant political power within the medium term. 

Societies embodying significantly different institutions can be democratic.

Or represent the same outcome as democracy would have achieved.

However, this conception of democracy raises a new difficulty. 

Because conceiving of stupid shit is productive of yet more stupid shit.

Arguably, no existing society fits the definition.

Because the definition is shit.  It's like saying 'marriage is a bond between equals'. Equality means both parties have the same sized dick. But no actual married couple has exactly the same sized dick. Thus nobody is actually married. Marriage does not exist. 

Material, social, and historical blocks to equal standing among citizens are pervasive in all societies claiming to be democratic. 

Also some peeps be cripples. They can't stand at all. How can they have equal standing? 

There is no self-governing society of political equals to be found. Every existing society falls short of that mark.

Just as no married couple has exactly the same sized dick. Every marriage falls short of the mark.

Does it then follow that democracy doesn’t exist, that no society should count as democratic? No. To see why, we need to take a step back to consider some features about what we might call aspirational concepts.

Very true. My wife aspires to have the same dick size as me. Thus our marriage- though not one of equals yet aspires to become so. 

Let’s begin by asking a different question: Was Aristotle a scientist? 

Yes. The word 'scientist' has a 'rigid designation'. Obviously the scope of 'science' has changed over the last centuries. However, it is perfectly proper to say Aristotle has been called a scientist for as long as the word 'scientist' has had currency. 

He wrote multiple treatises on scientific subjects, from marine biology and botany to astronomy and physics. However, he never looked through a microscope and had no conception of DNA. He had never heard of the theory of evolution or of Newton’s laws of motion. Moreover, he held views of natural phenomena that could hardly be called scientific by today’s standards. For example, he thought that species were eternal, that men and women had different number teeth, that the Earth is the center of the universe, that the universe’s motion had to be sustained by a purpose, and that formal and material explanations must be distinct. Not only were these views incorrect, but they arguably stood in the way of the progress of the sciences.

This is immaterial. It is of the nature of science that what is considered good science today will be considered as plain ignorance in the not too distant future. 

Nonetheless, Aristotle sought to explain the world around him by means of a particular style of inquiry, a mode of investigation that directed him to observe, tinker, take notes, track how things change, theorize in light of the available data, and revise as new evidence emerged.

There are plenty of great scientists alive today who don't 'observe, tinker, take notes' etc. They spend all their time doing very complicated maths. We think of Aristotle as an amateur Naturalist, not a Natural Scientist modeling population dynamics with arcane mathematical tools. However, we can't deny that a great Natural Scientist might find something interesting in Aristotle which we miss precisely because we don't know the relevant math.

For this reason, Aristotle was indeed a scientist.

But in that case, Socioproctology too is a science because its founder aspires to getting a Nobel Prize in Physics and two in Chemistry and perhaps half a dozen or so in Medicine. 

His status as such is due to the aspiration his empirical studies embody, and the way that aspiration guided his work. We’d say the same of Ptolemy and Newton. Moreover, we contend that contemporary scientists are bona fide scientists, even though we also expect that in the next 100 years new discoveries will render obsolete much of what they believe.

Suppose I aspire to say the same as what Aikin & Talisse have said in the last paragraph but vomit copiously and then shit myself instead. Would they consider me to have communicated the same thing as they just did? 

We should say the same about democracy.

Very true. North Korea genuinely aspires to be a true democracy but just can't get over its darned habit of shooting dissidents instead. 

It’s the name of a political aspiration. Accordingly, a society counts as democratic in virtue of the extent to which the aim of realizing a self-governing society of political equals guides its institutions and practices.

So only Marxist dictatorships which aim at the 'withering away of the State' are democratic. They may keep shooting people or Gulaging their sorry asses but their hearts are in the right place.

 This means that a society that falls short of being a self-governing society of political equals might nonetheless qualify

in the eyes of a cretin

 as an authentic democracy.

but it could equally well qualify as an inauthentic facsimile of the Nicaraguan horcrux of my neighbor's cat. 

However, it remains the case that a society’s being a democracy comes to more than its claim to be one. We regard Aristotle as a scientist not simply because he says he’s being scientific. Rather, his status as a scientist has to do with how he conducted his investigations; he counts as a scientist in virtue of how the aspiration to understand the world informed his efforts.

No. The reason Aristotle still qualifies as a scientist for some great natural scientists is because though his own investigations did not rise above that of an amateur naturalist, nevertheless he identified and was concerned with deep epistemological and ontological questions which remain at the center of 'open questions' and fecund research programs.

 We might call it a broad empiricism and a commitment to systematic and natural explanations.

Which is why Socioproctology is a science. Empirically assholes exist. Socioproctology's systematic and naturalistic explanation for the shite academic assholes produce focuses on the stupidity and ignorance of pedagogues like Aikin & Talisse.  They are simply incapable of writing a single sentence which isn't utterly foolish.

 Similarly, there are certain necessary institutional and practical conditions that a society must meet if it is to qualify as embodying the democratic aspiration. 

This is not the case. If, even absent any institutions or practical arrangements, we can be sure that a large class of voters can redistribute political power in the medium term, then democracy exists. 

Here we return to the familiar governmental and institutional forms that typically spring to mind when we think about democracy: open and fair elections,

which are costly and require high State capacity

 the rule of law,

which is even more costly and which requires not just high State capacity but also a class of legal professionals with strong normative traditions built up over centuries

 freedom of speech, and so on. A society that does not satisfy certain baseline institutional requirements cannot count as a democracy,

for the same reason that a nigger or a injun couldn't count as an equal citizen of Jefferson's democracy

 because it cannot be regarded as embracing the democratic aspiration.

Obviously, the guys who were slaughtered or enslaved to make room for American democracy didn't have any aspiration to belong to it. They'd rather have been left alone to live peacefully with their families in their own ancestral lands. 

But that’s not all. The democratic aspiration also involves the creation of a culture in which the aim of achieving a self-governing society of equals is operative in the minds and practices of political officials and citizens. 

So these cretins think 'democratic aspirations' involve setting up a fucking brainwashing cult. The truth is quite different. We just want to chuck out the guys we voted in to spend our tax dollars if they fuck up. That's it. That's the whole story. No taxation without representation. 

This means that for a society to qualify as democratic, 

in the eyes of academic assholes with zero reasoning ability

certain kinds of considerations, reasons, and arguments must count in discussions of political policy.

What considerations count in practical matters? Practical considerations, i.e. stuff like is this feasible? Can it be done more cheaply? Who pays for it? 

 To use a simplistic example, a cogent argument to the effect that a particular policy diminishes the capacity of some citizens to participate in self-government as equals must count as a formidable criticism of that policy. 

Nonsense! Unless there is some glaring Agent Principal hazard, specific Hohfeldian incident, or other significant informational asymmetry, this is not a formidable criticism at all. But this is a justiciable matter. Suppose I feel some proposed public policy negatively impacts a class to which I belong. I can approach the courts and argue that there has been a 'due process' violation in that adequate consultation has not occurred. 

What’s more, in the absence of similar considerations that favor the policy, the equality-based critique must be regarded as decisive. 

No. A Judge may find it trivial and dismiss the case. More generally, 'Laches' applies. Those who sleep on their rights deserve to lose them. It is not the case that nothing can bee done till every possible counterclaim is settled. 

Now putting the point in a different way, a society in which arguments about equality simply have no purchase 

because peeps be smart enough to see that such arguments are just worthless virtue signaling indulged by stupid academic assholes and antaganomic activists

in political discourse is at best a democracy in decline, and arguably not a democracy at all. 

in the opinion of two cretins. What people want is more nice things and less nasty things in their life. They are not concerned with a levelling down which will swiftly turn into mass starvation and levelling up is clearly impossible coz everybody can't have their own personal butler and physical trainer and gourmet chef. 

Similarly, politicians and political coalitions that disregard considerations about equality,

or what these cretins consider equality

 or that openly seek to limit any citizen’s equal access to the activities of self-government,

for example, by telling Aikin & Talisse that they are stupid and should kindly shut the fuck up when grownups are talking. 

 have effectively divested from democracy.

these cunts have certainly divested from Reason. 

Thus, even though no society lives up to the 

stupid, not

strict definition of democracy, democracies nevertheless exist. 

because peeps don't give a shit about equality or 'self-governance'. They just want a better deal for their tax dollar. 

Real world societies are democratic in virtue of 

only one thing. Voters get to kick out the administration and install a different bunch of jokers. 

This has nothing to do with any shit Aikin & Talisse pull out of their arse. 

satisfying two related conditions. First, the society must feature certain characteristic political institutions.

This is neither a necessary or sufficient condition. It is simply irrelevant. Why not simply say 'for me to recognize some foreign country as being like my own country, it must look exactly like what I am familiar with'. This is mere bigotry. 

 Second, the people – politicians, officials, and citizens alike – must regard those institutions as manifesting the moral aspiration to realize the idea of self-government among equals more fully. 

They may consider the Institution of the Witch Finder General to manifest moral aspirations of this sort. Moreover, they may stipulate for the  idea of self-government among equals with ginormous dicks be manifested more fully up Aikin & Talisse's collective asshole. 

Crucially, this means that a democratic people must treat certain kinds of moral considerations regarding equality as politically salient – always weighty, sometimes decisive – in their own political thinking.

Because if a people aren't Aikin & Talisse level stupid and ignorant of economics, they can't be called a 'democratic' people at all. 

Why stop there? Why not say a society which does not elect me President isn't democratic at all? 

We conclude by highlighting one important upshot of our account. It is common to think of democracy as something that is founded or established. 

It is uncommon to think of democracy. What useful purpose does it serve? Back in the Sixties, when people took a lot of drugs, you could argue whether Maoism was true democracy and whether the term 'Justice' could be applied to any outcome other than the physical liquidation of the bourgeoisie and the kulaks and the feudal remnants and the counter revolutionary forces and so forth. But doing so now is just stooopid. 

This leads to the thought that once a democracy is set up, all that remains it the task of upholding it.

These stupid cunts can't set up or uphold shit. But that's equally true of almost everybody else which is why don't we pretend otherwise. 

 This is an error. 

Just like thinking that Night will end and Dawn will rise even if we omit to shout loudly so as to wake up the Sun God from his deep slumber.

Once we see that democracy is an aspiration, we also see that the task of democracy is that of sustaining it. 

Fuck off! The task of democracy is to get us guys- the demos- a better return for our tax dollars. Similarly, the task of plumbing is to unclog my fucking toilet already rather than just carry on sustaining the aspirations of plumbing to get around to doing something useful some time. 

And sustaining democracy is a matter of working to change it in the direction of greater political equality.

Absolutely not. Experience has taught us that only nutters or vacuous virtue signalers describe themselves as 'working' for greater equality or social justice or true fraternity or other such bullshit. Sustaining any system of government involves improving governance0 i.e. administrative efficiency. Working involves doing useful stuff. What these two assholes are doing is not work. It is a wank. 

Is greater political equality desirable? Not if it leads to the exit of capital and enterprise and the sort of peeps wot take pride in their work and don't want to be endlessly harangued by virtue signaling nutters. 

Control rights should be aligned with uncorrelated asymmetries of an informational or productivity based type. Those control rights need to be reflected in apportionment of 'Voice'. Thus, if we are discussing what should be done about COVID, cretins like me should not be given an equal opportunity to express our views.  This is not to say that 'Voice' needs to be rationed. It just means that Social Choice must be at least as rational or regret minimizing as individual choice. Aiken & Talisse think that Social Choice must face much greater a priori constraints. Its menu must be stupid shit. Thankfully, we don't live in an epistocracy. We have democracy or, in China, a dictator who needs to ensure the cadres don't decide to arrange a nice 'accident' for him. 

Aikin & Talisse clearing decks for the homeless

Aikin & Talisse write in 3 quarks- 

Here’s a reasonable rule for critical discussion: all views for consideration should receive the same degree of scrutiny.

If a critical discussion has been mooted, the degree of scrutiny which permits it to exist should be related to the degree of scrutiny used. However this relationship may not be linear. A critical discussion facetiously entered in to may be yet more hilariously carried out with great 'akrebia' or precision.

A protocol bound discussion, however, should reject akrebia if the subject matter is incapable of precise treatment. This at any rate was Aristotle's recommendation.  

Subjecting one account to a low level of critical evaluation, but another to a higher level, is not only unfair, but it clearly risks incorrect outcomes.

Not if there is an uncorrelated asymmetry- e.g. one guy is an acknowledged expert in the field while the other is a notorious crackpot. It is foolish to throw away relevant information. It is an example of vertical inequity- you are treating unlike cases- e.g. an expert vs. a crackpot- as if they were alike. 

Suppose Aikin asked Talisse why he won't give a b.j to a homeless dude. Talisse's terse expression of dislike for the task should suffice to convince us the guy is not guilty of a racialist bias against the dude in question.  Aikin's suggestion that it Talisse's bigotry which prevented him from performing fellatio should be dismissed. Why? Talisse knows more about himself than Aikin. He genuinely doesn't relish sucking bums off. 

In retrospect, it is easy to see how such a shift can occur, especially when the claims on offer are controversial and when one sees some in the conversation as adversaries or allies. When a person we despise says something, we might even positively want them to be wrong. So, when they say something anodyne, like the sky is blue, we may be motivated to reply in the following fashion:

'Oh yeah? Well, sometimes, it’s red, purple, and yellow. That’s called sunset. And sometimes, it’s grey. That’s called overcast. Oh, and sometimes, it’s just black. That’s called night. Nice job overgeneralizing from sunny and cloudless days, you jerk.'

No we wouldn't. Either we look up and see the sky is blue and nod our heads or we say 'actually, the sky has just darkened. It looks like rain- worse luck'. 

You get the picture. Yet when a friendly interlocutor offers up the sky is blue, we tend to treat it with the modest degree of scrutiny that it calls for – as a general statement, with many exceptions. No problem.

This is silly. If the sky is blue, it isn't going to rain. That's the sort of information which is quite useful to us.  

One reason why the shift in critical scrutiny is hard to detect in situ is that it happens over time and with a background assumption about the exchange established in the process. This overall pattern we call the clearing the decks fallacy. Here’s how it unfolds. Step 1: Subject your opponents to the highest degree of scrutiny.

If this is done properly, then you gain useful information. The fact that you don't like the guy ceases to matter. There is no Step 2. 

Step 2: Once it is clear that the opponent’s views cannot satisfy that degree of scrutiny, conclude that they are nonviable and unsalvageable.

How does this benefit you? If thinking about what the guy said aint useful, don't do it. Move away.  

Step 3: Pronounce your own view, but in a way that assumes that the appropriate degree of scrutiny has greatly diminished (after all, the opposition has been refuted).

Fuck off! Why be dragged into a pointless argument? The other guy may have a strategic reason to get you to waste your time in this way. Don't fall in to his trap.  

Step 4: If objections do appear, reply with a reminder of Step 2 – that the alternatives have been eliminated, so objections that must be based on their assumptions are undercut.

Why not just tell stupid lies or demand a b.j?  

It’s a neat dialectical strategy: one clears the decks of one’s opposition by adopting an unforgiving critical stance, but then one proceeds as if those same standards are inappropriate when it comes time to articulate one’s own view.

Why bother? Just tell everybody that the other guy keeps sucking off homeless dudes.  

In short, one applies demanding standards to clear the decks of one’s opposition, but then retracts those standards when presenting one’s own position once the opposition has been eliminated.

There are more effective ways of being a cunt.  

Two features of the clearing the decks fallacy deserve emphasis.

There is no fallacy. These two fools made a mistake at Step 1. The highest degree of scrutiny you are capable of determines whether thinking about a thing is useful or useless to you. If it is useful, proceed alethically. If it isn't, fuck it. 

Thus if a Medical Doctor, I don't like, says something about COVID treatment, I might google the thing (because I have no more 'critical' method of evaluating his claim) . If, as I suspected, he is talking bollocks, I may say so. But if I learn something useful, I have received a benefit.  I may ask follow up questions so as to learn even more. This Doctor- who previously thought I was a fool- may change his opinion about me. He might say, 'I hear you are an Economist. What do you think of my portfolio strategy?'.

First, and most obviously, the fallacy involves an illicit shift in the standard of critical scrutiny that views are expected to meet; specifically, in committing the clearing the decks fallacy, one holds an opponent’s view to critical standards that one is unwilling to apply to one’s own view.

This is foolish. Suppose, my enemy, a Doctor, says something about COVID and I don't bother to google the thing (which is the highest standard of critical scrutiny I can apply). Instead I just say- 'Mahatma Gandhi said Doctors spread diseases. You have no true knowledge of curing anything. You are just a quack.' 

Have I won the argument? To my mind, perhaps. But everybody thinks I'm a Gandhian crackpot. Then I fucking die of COVID. 

On the other hand, if there is an information asymmetry between you and the other guy, you may well hold his statements regarding such matters with greater skepticism. But this is true of other uncorrelated asymmetries. I am likely to take assertions about COVID in India made by an Indian Doctor in India at face value while subjecting to intense scrutiny counter-intuitive claims by a Giorgio Agamben. 

Second, the fallacy involves the meta-argumentative presumption that once an opponent’s view has been successfully criticized, they are rendered incapable of formulating legitimate criticisms of one’s view.

This is a non sequitur. The thing, quite literally, does not follow. A 'meta-argumentative presumption' has no higher standing than an ad hominem premise or just a hyper-argumentative fart in the face of the opponent.  

Although the clearing the decks fallacy is similar to more familiar fallacies, it is a distinct kind of argumentative error.

It is shit these guys have pulled out of their asses. 

For example, note that hasty generalizations do not need others in the discussion – you can hastily generalize all on your own. But clearing the decks can be committed only against an interlocutor.

That's a hasty generalization. An imaginary interlocutor may feature in which case the thing has happened without any interlocutor at all. This is also the reason the fact that you have had imaginary sex with She-Hulk doesn't mean you aren't a virgin. Sad. 

It’s thus an error of critical dialogue, which implicates interlocutors, audiences, and time for the conversation to move between critical and constructive stages.

It's just worthless shit these guys pulled out of their ass is all it is. 

Crucially, it’s also an error that occurs not simply when one reasons about things, but when one reasons about how others reason about things. It’s a meta-argumentative fallacy. Contrast this with, say, the fallacy of asserting the consequent, which one commits by simply in virtue of reasoning incorrectly about whatever first-order thing one reasons about (cats, Finland, big numbers, whatever). The clearing the decks fallacy involves an assessment of others and their reasoning about things.

But those others may be imaginary. These fools are asserting the consequent. They are treating something imaginary as real. 

Back in the Thirties, an Indian philosophy student- Mulk Raj Anand- published a book of interviews with prominent British thinkers. The trouble was, the context made clear, these weren't real interlocutors at all. They were guys Anand had bumped into and pestered with questions while they hurriedly tried to get away. 

The big problem with 'critical discussions' where one side is as stupid as shit is that the opponent that is being defeated is imaginary. There is no real interlocutor. There is just one crackpot talking bollocks while the other guy backs away making no sudden moves till he can get to the street and make a run for it.  

In committing the clearing the decks fallacy, one evaluates one’s opponents, their reasons, and their views.

One does this when winning arguments against Einstein and that girl who wouldn't go out with you when you were 15. It's all in your head mate. Get help. Or just get a life.  

Consequently, it’s a fallacy of meta-argumentation, an error one makes when one reasons about reasons and reasoning. It emerges because we argue about arguments. That makes it interesting in its own right, but because it’s a fallacy that happens when we reason about reasons, it’s an error that philosophers have a particular tendency to make.

So fuck philosophers. They are useless and stupid. Tell them they smell bad and maybe they'll go away.  

The classical pragmatists routinely commit this fallacy.

No they don't. If an uncorrelated asymmetry exists then some information is available which endows greater epistemic value on some propositions, based on who made them or how they were made, as against other propositions. There is no flaw in reasoning where the information set is different and this causes the judgment to be different.  

Typically, they hold non-naturalist, rationalist, and idealist programs to the highest degrees of critical scrutiny, but when it is time for pragmatist programs to be proposed, maximum charity is asked for the views on offer.

This is perfectly proper. I know what is useful to me. I may carefully scrutinize claims which are not obviously useful to me but, finding nothing of value, I am entitled to disregard them going forward.  

The pragmatists explain they are merely experimentalists, so expectations must be appropriately lowered, as though experiments don’t deserve critical scrutiny.

But utility is 'noetic'. No 'dianoia' is required where the thing is immediately useful.  

What’s more, the pragmatists only rarely circle back to consider objections proposed by opponents whose positive views have been dismissed.

I assert that Aikin & Talisse must go suck off homeless dudes otherwise the clearing the decks fallacy will fuck them in the ass. Why are Aikin & Talisse doing stuff they want to do instead of doing what I think they should do? What is the reason for this double standard?  

In fact, non-naturalist and rationalist criticisms of pragmatism are treated as if they are no more than brute reaffirmations of non-naturalism and rationalism.

Aikin & Talisse must go suck off homeless dudes otherwise they are treating socioproctological criticisms of them as if they were no more than some other shite they don't like.  

Thus, criticisms of pragmatism’s positive views are dismissed as instances of already rejected positions, such as “intellectualism” or “the spectator theory of knowledge.”

Not till everybody sees these two dudes sucking off the homeless with vim and vigor will 'the spectator theory of knowledge' get fair play.  

It is difficult to square this stance with the pragmatist’s avowed experimentalism and fallibilism.

Unless you are actively sucking off smelly homeless dudes or aren't as stupid as shit and know about uncorrelated asymmetries. 

The clearing the decks fallacy is not new, of course. In the history of philosophy, it can be seen with some regularity, once one is attuned to the pattern. The philosopher-poet Xenophanes famously held the model of the Olympian gods to severe scrutiny for moral and epistemological reasons, but when it was time for him to articulate his monotheistic alternative, he announced that we should “let these things be assented to, as resembling truth.” That is, after mercilessly debunking the competitor views, he asked for some tolerance for his incomplete account.

Nothing wrong in that. Xenophanes was saying he had a more focal solution to a discoordination game. The 'oikeiosis' peculiar to philosophers like himself made this plausible which is why we remember his name. 

Aristotle held that diagnosing the errors of the alternatives to what he saw as obvious was “proof enough” for his views.

This was a case of 'economia' triumphing over 'akrebia'. The truth is Aristotle's Lyceum was useful enough. The proof of a Paideia lies in the fact that those who provide it get to eat pudding, not hemlock.  

Epicureans famously held that once they’d shown skepticism was self-refuting, the skeptical challenges to their All Sensations are True principle were beside the point. All of these thinkers proceeded from the move of clearing the decks and then moving forward as though no legitimate alternative had standing.

This is because they had a notion of 'synoida' or noesis such that some things were known directly. It was part of oikeiosis. No further dianoia was necessary for its appropriation. The thing was an uncorrelated asymmetry. Philosophers had gained some quality or character trait that set them apart. This, by itself, might make them a target for a Tardean mimetic process. If not, at least your Daddy's money was buying you bragging rights re. having studied under a reputed savant. 

To be clear, there are indeed cases where critical voices, once successfully rebuked, can subsequently be disregarded.

No. A successful rebuke is not the condition for disregarding a voice. You have to establish that you won't regret not heeding it at any time in the future. Currently, we can disregard Q-anon nutters. However, if their candidates start winning elections, we need to keep our ears open to hear what they are saying. At some point we may have to run away if we hope to return and fight another day. 

And there are those who offer as criticisms of one’s position little more than the brute reaffirmation of their own. The clearing the decks fallacy has to do with the tendency to presume that once one dismantles the opposition’s positive views, they are thereby rendered impotent as critics.

Clear the decks by all means if it is regret minimizing to do so. But keep a wary eye out for changes in uncorrelated asymmetries. They decide outcomes. Of such is the regret minimizing bourgeois strategy. Anything else is the moral equivalent of sucking off homeless dudes by epistemic default. This is still shameful even if the spunk is imaginary.  

Aikin & Talisse on deep disagreement

A disagreement is interesting where- rather than being the predictable  consequence of heterogeneous preferences or interests- it represents a departure from the conditions for Aumann agreement- i.e. a situation where two or more parties have Bayesian rationality and share common priors and posteriors. The question arises, why do they have different types of rationality? Can they do better by changing their heuristics? Alternatively, why are their priors or posteriors different? Knowing this may help expand the common information set.

Deep disagreements are particularly interesting. It may be that they represent  phenotypic diversity or confer survival value. This points to something else Aumann has looked at- viz. why 'regret minimization' militates against unanimity and its associated 'Bayesian rationality'. The existence of Knightian Uncertainty means that a 'deep disagreement' may be associated with an ambiguity in classification of states of the world such that something 'paradigm busting' is around the corner.

It is foolish to confuse mutual hatred, or the difference between sanity and lunacy, with deep disagreement. Predictably, this is what Aikin & Talisse do. They write in 3 Quarks-

Deep disagreements are disagreements where two sides agree on so little that there are no shared resources for reasoned resolution.

This is not a disagreement. There may be no contact at all between the two sides. If there is contact, there may be mutual hatred, not disagreement.

In some cases, argument itself is impossible. The fewer shared facts or means for identifying them, the deeper the disagreement.

Only in the sense that cats and dogs have deep disagreements. 

Some hold that many disagreements are deep in this way. They contend that reasoned argument has very little role to play in discussions of the things that divide us. Call these the deep disagreement pessimists – they claim that many of the disputes we face cannot be addressed by shared reasoning.

Shared reasoning is as ineffective with people as it is with cats snarling at barking dogs. By contrast, a change in the incentive system or conditions of life may be mutually beneficial. There are ways in which you can make your cat and your dog get along such that both are happier and your home is harmonious. This happy outcome is the result of a certain type of reasoning and application of mind on your part. But it isn't a process 'shared reasoning' in which Fido & Chairman Miaow have demonstrated their ratiocinative prowess. 

It is seldom the case that matters are resolved through 'shared reasoning' because uncorrelated asymmetries exist- i.e. it is in the interest of both parties to chose different protocols or principles. But, where utility is transferable, disagreement or disagreeableness can be mitigated by some rational, economic, process or mechanism. But this is transactional, not epistemic. It is foolish to think that what makes people get along is not mutually advantageous transactions but, rather, some sophomoric debate about values or categorical imperatives. Philosophy makes a fool of itself when it pretends Society works on the same principles as an idealized academic Symposium.

There are also deep disagreement optimists. Their view is that deep disagreements are intractable only for contingent reasons – perhaps we have not yet surveyed all the available evidence, or we are waiting on new evidence, or there is some background shared methodological principle yet to be uncovered. With deep disagreement, the optimist holds, it is hasty to give up on rational exchange, because something useful is likely available, and the costs of passing such rational resolution up are too high. Better to keep the critical conversation going.

But who will pay to keep it going? Talking has an opportunity cost. The potential pay-off from talking has to exceed that cost for rational people to indulge in it. 

Disputes among pessimists and optimists regularly turn on the practical question: Are there actual deep disagreements?

No- if some state of the world, one party affirms as possible, obtains.

The debates over abortion and affirmative action were initially taken to be exemplary of disagreements that are, indeed, deep.

They are not deep at all if the Sky turns as red and blood and the Angel Gabriel appears with a flaming sword saying 'I iz gonna fuck up all youse pro-Lifers! Also, Whitey, yore ass gonna fry sho nuff!'  

Later, secularist and theists outlooks on the norms of life were taken to instantiate a divide of the requisite depth. More recently, conspiracy theories have been posed as points of view at deep odds with mainstream thought.

If Q-Anon gets hold of cctv footage showing widespread pedophilia in Federal buildings then they win. There is no deep disagreement. 

This brings us to QAnon.

Here’s QAnon’s core doctrine in a nutshell: (a) there is a cabal of Satanic and child-sex-trafficking Hollywood and Washington elites who drink ‘adrenochrome’ from tortured victims to prolong their lives; (b) Donald Trump, along with select other patriots, is waging a secret war against this group; and (c) an insider with ‘Q-level’ clearance in either intelligence or military command is leaking information out to readers on internet message boards. So Q-believers think they have insider information about a monumental war of good versus evil that’s being fought right in front of everyone’s eyes, but is nevertheless largely unseen.

Till they get hold of all that damning cctv footage which is currently safely hidden up Trump's rectum.  

Conspiracy theories typically are based in accounts of secret dealings that not only run contrary to widely accepted views but are also evidentially sealed off from them.

No. Conspiracy theories have truth makers. Sometimes, they turn out to be true in some particular and, in the face of hard evidence, the 'mainstream' has to accept that the nutjobs were right. 

Because conspiracy theories are built around a contrast between what is widely believed and what is known only by those with special access to the truth, they can thrive only among a community of conspiracy believers.

Nonsense! A conspiracy theory doesn't start off 'widely believed'. It takes time for it to disseminate. Nobody has 'special access' to the truth, though there may be specific information silos which, however, some who have access to them, believe are of great and malign significance. A UFO conspiracy theory- or a theory about the Deep State- is likely to have some proponents who actually worked in some clerical capacity within a specific information silo. Similarly, conspiracy theories about supposed medical and technological evils generally have at least one credentialized 'expert' on side. Kary Mullins is a Nobel Prize winning scientist who endorses some truly crazy shit. But he's hella smart.

Accordingly, what outsiders present as evidence against the conspiracy theory gets explained away by those on the inside.

But this is true of any hypothesis- including the one that a [articular theory is 'conspiratorial'. 

Purported evidence against the conspiracy theory is often transformed into further evidence that those on the outside are deluded, duped, and gullible.

But this is also true of the anti-conspiracy theory. In some cases, suspicions about financial institutions or intelligence agencies have turned out to be correct. There really was a conspiracy. It was the 'insiders' who were deluded, duped and gullible. 

Was the Iraq War a conspiracy to unjustly enrich certain bad actors? Or was it necessary for the War against Terror? Clearly, if there was a conspiracy, not everybody was involved. Equally, if there was no conspiracy, some bad actors did exist. Still, it may be expedient for us to decide that the thing was a Conspiracy, not a Crusade.

In the end, conspiracy theories thrive partly because in adopting them, one adopts the view that all possible evidence confirms the theory.

No. Theism, of a particular mystical sort, may thrive for this reason. But so may a sufficiently sophisticated Structural Causal Model for a narrow enough class of evidence. That is why, for the research program to remain Scientific, the scope of observation must expand. 

We can say, then, that it is part of the nature of conspiracy theories to be epistemically sealed in this way.

No we can't. The nature of Scientific or Mathematical Theories is to be epistemically sealed in a protocol bound manner. But this is also true of legal arguments or opinions given by professional experts. Without protocols, nothing is epistemically sealed. Conspiracy theories are likely to be loosey goosey. We don't expect their exponents to be sticklers for protocol.  

So it is with QAnon. Observe some popular pairings of counter-evidence and correlate sealing strategies:

Ellen DeGeneres and Oprah Winfrey have been arrested for child pornography, but they are still allowed to tape their respective shows, so as not to alert the others in the cabal.

Either this is true or it is not true. By and by, this canard won't be repeated because both women will continue their successful careers. So, there is no real 'sealing strategy'. There is just a rumor of a silly sort. 

Wayfair trunks are means for ordering and delivering abducted children to their abusers, but only select users may order them.

An urban legend is something less than a 'conspiracy theory'. It may be convenient to pretend one has fallen victim to a rumor of this sort rather than to have engaged wittingly in seditious conspiracy.  

Kamala Harris has a body double, but one cannot tell the difference on video.

This is true enough. I had to give up pant suits because I was afraid of being mistaken for her. 

Hillary Clinton was to be arrested for child sex trafficking in 2017, but she was allowed to continue her activities but under heavy surveillance.

I am not a child. Any sex trafficking which I have been subjected to since 2017 is of a reprehensible type. But it does not amount to pedophilia- though, no doubt, I wear diapers.  

These reports make no promise that there will be publicly available confirming evidence.

But, by lapse of time, they are rebutted. It's like the Mayan prophesy of the end of the World. When the world doesn't end, the thing is dead in the water. As I say, it may be convenient to pretend to believe in this sort of shit so that the quantum of punishment is reduced if your seditious conspiracy is prosecuted.  

Repeating a rumor is a type of 'cheap talk'. It is a fake type of 'common knowledge'. But it provides a sort of alibi. You can pretend you were just going with the flow- wishing to belong to a 'pooling equilibrium'. You weren't doing anything naughty or premeditated. The difficulty arises with 'costly signals' which establish a 'separating equilibrium'- in this case, one of greater culpability. An actual conspiracy may well feature a full fledged conspiracy theory. But, it would be wise to disguise it so as not to give away the conspiracy's plan of action. 

A prediction of a cataclysmic even on a given date in the near future has two effects. On the one hand it acts like a 'Kavka toxin' increasing current levels of belief. On the other hand, it will lead to 'cognitive dissonance' after the prediction fails to materialize. Some will fall away to reduce this dissonance. But those who remain will be far more deeply committed. Something like a Church is created whose members will be prepared to 'tithe' and to provide martyrs from time to time. This could be very valuable.

Aikin & Talisse don't get that a failed prediction can be a good thing. It creates a 'separating equilibrium' on the basis of cognitively costly signals. Cognitive dissonance now operates to create greater loyalty and a greater desire to win reputational advantage by a greater show of commitment to the cause. 

Thus Aikin & Talisse feel Q Anon, and- perhaps Trumpism- have been thoroughly vanquished.  

The fact that Inauguration Day has come and gone without incident is evidence that what was taken to be a deep disagreement with no shared intellectual resources for rational disputation was, in fact, a disagreement waiting for crucial testing. That test has come. Though the QAnon conspiracy theorists may elect to incorporate yet another epicycle into their worldview, that they recognize the need to regroup and revise is a minor win for reason and argument. 
It also suggests that the among Q-believers and those who reject the view is not absolutely deep after all.

The above suggests that Aikin & Talisse are as stupid as shit. There can be little 'deep disagreement' about that. Meanwhile the people who got into Q-Anon will find some other type of clickbait scam to engross their time.

1.7K

Pandemic Era Isolation and Anxiety Can Contribute to Substance Abuse