I can’t believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. The web is turning writing into a conversation. Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. March The web is turning writing into a conversation.
While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn’t necessarily imply refutation. Permission Reusing this file. I am large, I contain multitudes. After all, one must know the rule to break it well. A full list is available. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. This work has been released into the public domain by its author, Rocket
File:Graham’s Hierarchy of – Wikimedia Commons
A triangular graphic representing a “hierarchy of disagreement” from clear refutation to mere vituperation, based on the essay “How to Disagree” by Paul Graham. A DH6 response could still be completely mistaken.
So a esszy effective refutation would look like: The web is turning writing into a conversation. Date 5 September Source hand-coded by uploader; based on File: Grahamx grants anyone the right to use this work for any purposewithout any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. All structured data from the file and property namespaces is available under the Creative Commons CC0 License ; all grajams text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply.
Graham describes this as the “Blub paradox” and concludes that “By induction, the only programmers in a position to see all the differences in power between the various languages are those who understand the most powerful one. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read.
File:Graham’s Hierarchy of – Wikipedia
InPaul Graham married Jessica Livingston. Diagrams Translation possible – SVG. When you disagree you’re entering territory he may not have explored. This is not to discount the usefulness of understanding DH levels. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in dsiagree own blog posts.
Cornell University Harvard University. If there’s something wrong with the senator’s argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn’t, what difference does it make that he’s a senator? More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. What You Can’t Say. Files are available under licenses specified on their description page. But when he looks up, he fails to realise that he is looking up: Archived from the original on 9 April Of course he would say that.
Disagreeing with “How to Disagree”
For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators’ salaries should be increased, one could respond: For people who engage in apologetics or online discussions of any kind, but especially theology, it might help to be able to spot when someone is just contradicting pauo grounds and when a person seems able to continue in a civilly disagreeing vein.
Date 5 September Source hand-coded by uploader; based on File: The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation.
The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances ;aul find.
Width Height Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. What good is it? Structured data Items portrayed in this file depicts P But just in case, here is some food for though Diswgree believe is well-stated and interesting.
The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer.
If we’re all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well.