Revisiting Non-centrality

post by casebash · 2015-03-26T01:49:07.710Z · LW · GW · Legacy · 5 comments

Contents

5 comments

I recently read this article by Yvain where he discusses what he calls the worst argument in the world or the "non-centrality fallacy". If you haven't read the article, he describes it by first beginning a hypothetical objection to a proposal to build a statue for Martin Luther King. He imagine that someone objects based on Martin Luther King being a "criminal", which would technically be true as some of his protests were technically not legal. Yvain notes that while the typical response would be to argue that he isn't a criminal, a more intellectually robust approach would be to argue that he is actually "the good kind of criminal". However, this would result in you looking silly. The non-centrality fallacy gets its name because someone is trying to convince us to treat an unusual member of a class (ie. Martin Luther King with the class of "criminals") with the members of a class we first think of (thieves, drug dealers, ect.). 

I think that this is a very valuable line of analysis, but unfortunately, labelling something as a "fallacy" is very black and white given that different people will consider different items to be central or non-central. I think that a much better approach is to identify the ways in which a particular example is either typical or non-typical. I will us + for similarities and - for differences, and ~ for things that aren't necessarily non-typical of the class, but worth separating out anyway. I will use "arguably" in front of all statements that aren't definite matters of fact.

 

Martin Luther King and criminals

+ Technically broke the law

~ Non-violent

- Arguably, non-selfish motivations

- Arguably, attempting to challenge unjust laws

 

Abortion and murder

+ Destroys a human/human-like entity

- Complete absence/major differences in cognitive abilities

- No relationships with friends and family

- Doesn't create a fear of being killed within society

- Society hasn't invested significantly in raising the entity

 

Capital punishment and murder

+ Kills a human

- Arguably, decreases crime

- Arguably, helps the family move on

- Arguably, deserved as a punishment

 

Affirmative action and racism

+ Treats people differently based on race

+ Arguably increases tensions between races

+ Arguably, provides some individuals with undeserved opportunities

- Arguably, ensures equality of opportunity

- Arguably, reduces racism

 

Taxation and theft

+ Takes money without consent

- Accepted by the vast majority of the population

- Arguably, necessary for the functioning of society

- Arguably, necessary for addressing fundamentally unfair aspects of our society

 

When we have this as a list of positive and negatives, instead of a single conclusion about whether or not it is fallacious, I think that it opens up the conversation, instead of closing it down. Take for example the person who believe that capital punishment is accurately described as murder. They might argue that murdering a drug lord would decrease crime, but it is still murder. They would note that sometimes people who are killed are really bad people who treated others really badly, but it is still murder. They could argue that someone wouldn't have the right to go and kill someone who abused them, even if it would help them move on. So it isn't immediately clear whether the given example is central or not.

I suspect that in most of these cases, you won't be able to shift the person's point of view about the categorisation. However, you may be able to give much more insight to them about where the disagreement lies. Neutral parties will likely be much less likely to get caught up on the argument by definition.

5 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.