The Climber’s Agreement and Logical Charity

While there are now traffic jams on top of Mount Everest, climbing is a rather isolating activity. When you hike for days to get to a wall that has never been climbed, then spend sometimes days to make it to the top, no one is there to witness your exploit, and no one was there to see you climbing to the top. When you come back and claim a first ascent, most of the time, fellow climbers only have your word for it. This is how it is. If you don’t believe climbers when they tell you their stories, why should they believe yours? If a climate of scepticism were established in the community, progress in the sport would come to a halt.

The climbing community solves that problem with “the climber’s agreement,” which is to take a fellow climber at their word. When claims of first ascents are made with descriptions of the climb and pointers for future climbers, the community accepts the testimony. As Alex Honnold once said, there’s no cheating in climbing, only lying. The climber’s agreement is a factual version of the principle of charity, which in critical theory invites you to take your fellow thinkers as intelligent people. They might make a mistake in the process of communicating beliefs, but charity invites you to correct the mistakes reasonably and seek understanding of their views rather than deconstruction. It’s much easier to be sceptical than it is to properly understand something we don’t agree with.

I want to propose a similar attitude, not with respect to content, but logic. So the logician’s climber’s agreement would be to take fellow thinkers to hold coherent beliefs. They might make logical mistakes, but oftentimes those can be identified and corrected without change to content, so go ahead. Seek coherence in their thoughts. Much like the climber’s agreement, going the opposite and taking on a sceptical stance only blocks progress. I know, it’s quite easy to show some argument isn’t valid, because validity is very hard to attain. If my goal were to debunk arguments logically, let me tell you I wouldn’t have many friends.

There are contexts in which the rigidity of valid thinking is required, for the professionals, those who dwell in mathematics. For the rest of common people, we can chill a little. Not every climber is a pro climber, and so long as they are honest about how they climbed the wall, there’s no ground for judgment or dismissal. I wonder to what extent the climber’s agreement can be extended to dialectics in the community, and when it would break down.

The Principle of Charity in Argumentation

I just saw a call for a paper for a special issue on the principle of charity. Maybe I could contribute something. Let’s brainstorm. The principle of charity, as I teach it in my critical thinking classes, is to treat others as intelligent people. This means that we should interpret their arguments with a generous mind, correct for blunders, and help revise mistakes. Why be so charitable? Because if we don’t agree with them, showing that even the better version of their argument still doesn’t work is more effective, in contrast to the straw man fallacy, which is to debunk a much weaker version of the view they proposed. If we agree with them, everyone benefits from learning to present the view in more coherent or cogent ways. And if we haven’t settled on the issue, we wish for a quality exchange, not a populist debate like the ones politicians keep serving us these days.

What I can add following my recent work in Logic in the Wild to the debate is that being charitable isn’t only about the content of the views, but about the coherence. More importantly, logic can generate uncharitable reactions. How? By adopting the wrong logical standards of analysis. A clear case would be to treat an argument as being deductive when it is non-deductive, i.e., to dismiss the argument for being invalid when it wasn’t intended to live up to strict standards. Most people don’t know the difference between deductive and non-deductive arguments; indeed, the topic is controversial amongst experts. Most people aren’t attuned to valid argumentation, and I’m afraid to say, that’s also true for people who have taken classes in logic or critical thinking. The standards of validity aren’t appropriate, for instance, in the court of law that adopts a “beyond reasonable doubt” attitude. Beyond reasonable doubt leaves room for error, validity doesn’t. The same applies in everyday life, especially on difficult matters that are difficult to settle.

Being logically charitable, then, is to treat others not only as intelligent people but as coherent reasoners. It is to assume that people can organize their thoughts in a coherent fashion, even if the way they articulate their views might not live up to the strictest logical standards. If those standards aren’t fit for purpose anyway, to reject their view for being invalid is to treat them uncharitably.

Reference: https://link.springer.com/collections/acibjfjdga

Understanding Logical Injustice in Daily Life

Logical injustice occurs when someone is unfairly hindered from recognizing the coherence in their thoughts and expressions. This may stem from the imposition of inappropriate logical standards in situations where they don't apply. A classic example of this is responding with the strict standards of mathematical validity during a casual family reunion dinner—a party trick I've learned to ditch, albeit perhaps a few awkward family gatherings too late. Let’s explore this further.

Imagine a scenario where someone is wrestling with a significant life decision, such as relocating to a different city for a new job opportunity. This choice is fraught with uncertainty and will undoubtedly affect their entire family. In such a situation, relying solely on logical validity as a guiding principle can be more obstructive than helpful.

For instance, any argument they make in favour of moving can be countered with extreme or highly improbable scenarios. Consider the possibility of better career prospects and personal growth in the new city. A counter-argument might point out the instability of the world, suggesting the potential bankruptcy of the new company and the consequent isolation in an unfamiliar city. Or, to take it to an absurd level, one might argue about the unlikely event of extraterrestrial abduction at the new job, rendering any decision moot.

Although these counter-arguments technically make sense because they offer counterexamples, they aren't really useful or relevant in practice. In situations like these, sticking rigidly to logical validity doesn't help. It stops the person from sharing a clear and sensible argument for why moving could be beneficial. Basically, this is a case of logical injustice, where the right reasoning is overshadowed by overly strict logic.

To effectively handle these situations, it's essential to identify which logical approaches are suitable for each conversation. Striking a balance between clear reasoning and real-world applicability is crucial for encouraging meaningful and constructive discussions, particularly when it comes to personal and emotionally significant decisions.

Being logically just is not just about being logically correct; it's about understanding the context and applying logical principles that are fitting and constructive. By doing so, we not only respect others' viewpoints but also contribute to more coherent and considerate decision-making processes.

Embracing Understanding: The Art of Logical Charity in Conversations

The principle of charity asks us to view others as intelligent beings. It's tempting to highlight errors in someone's beliefs to discredit them. Yet, this approach can lead to misunderstandings and missed opportunities for rich dialogue. Imagine Ash argues that our capability to land on Mars signals that we could redirect our scientific focus to solve major issues like world hunger, rather than enhancing cell phone technology. If I simply dismiss Ash's point by pointing out the factual inaccuracy - we haven't landed on Mars - it's an uncharitable response. Ash probably knows it was the Moon, not Mars, and their error was more of a science fiction Freudian slip. The principle of charity would lead us to gently correct this slip-up and engage more deeply with Ash's underlying argument.

Alongside this, there's the idea I call the Principle of Logical Charity. It challenges us to see others as coherent thinkers. We all deal with a wealth of beliefs and information, trying to make sense of a complex world. This principle is about assuming people are doing their best to express coherent thoughts. Take, for example, the seeming contradictions in Christianity's monotheistic belief system, distinguishing between Jesus and the Holy Spirit, both considered God. Labeling this as incoherent misses the mark. The Principle of Logical Charity would have us find a coherent explanation, such as the concept of 'God being multiply realisable'. This approach doesn't necessarily confirm all aspects of Christian beliefs, but it allows us to understand certain parts coherently. Overlooking this principle can lead to 'logical injustice', where we fail to appreciate the potential coherence in others' views.