Vivisectional of a bad critic’s argument
I briefly outlined the sociological process involved in the production of bad criticism:
Step I) : <Subject ‘X’ is value ‘V’> (Value V can be any sort of discrimination or shortcoming, either logical or illogical) - The critic is not necessarily doing anything wrong at this point, this is just how most criticism starts out.
Step II) : <Subject ‘X’ did action ‘A’ under conditions ‘C’ to cause the event/effect ‘E’> Again, the critic is not necessarily doing anything wrong at this point, although you can definitely tell a bad critic from a good critic right away by looking at Step B, because it might be missing sufficient data or Step B could be absent entirely.
– The reason that Step II is necessary for a good argument can be represented mathematically. When a solution to a math problem is given, one can not simply say "The solution is ‘N’ ", you must illustrate all necessary elements of the equation which will help in understanding the solution. Take for example an equation where A + B = C. A mathematician can not simply say “the solution to a problem is C” without first showing what the problem is. This is why Math Teacher’s make students show their work. It not only ensures that they didn’t cheat off of somebody, but it is simply practicing good logic.
Variant of Step II: <Subject ‘X’ is value ‘V’ with evidence ‘D’> - with a bad critic, evidence ‘D’ will be very limited, perhaps non-existent or irrelevant. While it is in some cases impossible for an evidence to be completely relevant, there is a certain threshold of relevancy which is usually determined by the audience of the critic - this strays into personal preference and can not be well defined, however “common sense” and “better judgment” should be employed, and if the audience is able to, ego should be detached as well (or as much as possible to avoid emotional interaction).
Step III) <Subject ‘X’ is value ‘V’ because of my emotional involvement ‘Z’> If Step III is present at all, then the fallaciousnness of the critic becomes blatantly obvious. While emotional involvement is perfectly acceptable in social interactions and most aspects of every day life, there are a few incidents where emotional involvement should be left out: First, emotional involvement should be left out of law and criminal cases. Second, emotional involvement should be left out of politics.
While emotional involvement is impossible to be completely mitigated due to the inherent nature of the human psyche, it is best to reduce it to as insignificant as possible.
Even in philosophy, emotional involvement is acceptable. However when it breaches a threshold where it undoubtedly blocks out solid factual evidence, then the emotional involvement is fallacious and the critic’s entire argument is usually discredited if not completely disposed.
Step IV, the Conclusion) <Response ‘R’ should be given by audience ‘C’ in response to value ‘V’ of subject ‘X’> The bad critic will usually design the response to personally benefit himself - the benefit could be political, economical, or psychological. If a benefit for the bad critic can be observed as existing beyond a reasonable doubt, then the credibility of the critic is greatly deduced.
In summary, the bad critic will in most cases have a multitude of fallacies contained within his argument - these can be pointed out semantically (which we have just shown) or intuitively - while the former is generally more reliable than the latter in political/criminal cases, the latter can be more efficient in social cases.
This examination is meant to serve as an outline of fallacious criticism, and is no way a “set-in-stone” pathway that fallacious criticism follows.
Due to the nature of the ‘bad argument’ being poorly constructed, the steps might be executed without any particular order.
