It is so common in our society to attack the person instead of their argument. I have been doing a serious dig into the media (report coming soon) and realize we have been trained our entire life to do exactly that. We rely on credentials to make an argument. It allows us to skip over parts of an argument we don't understand, or that don't seem quite right. We assign our critical thinking during those moments over to the authors credentials, relying on what other people think of them, and not on the argument itself.
Looking back in my life I used to do this all the time. Occasionally I still find myself doing it. It is so deeply ingrained in us to look to credentials, or to ignore an argument that makes sense (but that we otherwise disagree with) by doing the opposite, denying the right to speak through lack of credentials or some imagined nefarious intent.
But an argument is an argument. The words, presentation of facts, logic, and even bias do not change based on how many letters a person has, or doesn't have, after their name. All education and experience do for an argument is help someone to make a sound argument. It doesn't actually have anything to do with the argument itself once presented.
For me, I do everything I can now to make sure I take every argument on its face. The person speaking is irrelevant, only the argument matters. From my view each argument deserves full consideration, no matter what I may think of anything else a person has said, or what expectations I have based on what I know about them.
That doesn't mean I look at every possible argument, but if I am going to engage at all, I try very hard to engage with full consideration. There is no reason to do anything half-assed, nor ever attack the person instead of their argument.
Apologize for the troll comment. You have responded with honor as we dig. I as we dig.
It is so common in our society to attack the person instead of their argument. I have been doing a serious dig into the media (report coming soon) and realize we have been trained our entire life to do exactly that. We rely on credentials to make an argument. It allows us to skip over parts of an argument we don't understand, or that don't seem quite right. We assign our critical thinking during those moments over to the authors credentials, relying on what other people think of them, and not on the argument itself.
Looking back in my life I used to do this all the time. Occasionally I still find myself doing it. It is so deeply ingrained in us to look to credentials, or to ignore an argument that makes sense (but that we otherwise disagree with) by doing the opposite, denying the right to speak through lack of credentials or some imagined nefarious intent.
But an argument is an argument. The words, presentation of facts, logic, and even bias do not change based on how many letters a person has, or doesn't have, after their name. All education and experience do for an argument is help someone to make a sound argument. It doesn't actually have anything to do with the argument itself once presented.
For me, I do everything I can now to make sure I take every argument on its face. The person speaking is irrelevant, only the argument matters. From my view each argument deserves full consideration, no matter what I may think of anything else a person has said, or what expectations I have based on what I know about them.
That doesn't mean I look at every possible argument, but if I am going to engage at all, I try very hard to engage with full consideration. There is no reason to do anything half-assed, nor ever attack the person instead of their argument.