The Force of Reason

To insulate theories from criticism and refutation is the easiest thing, done simply by denying the applicability of all standards of criticism, allowing any theory, whether ethical, scientific, mathematical, or whatever, to be shielded from refutation. If a theory is to be criticisable, then you need to decide what kind of criticism you will accept. In other words, theories are refutable if you choose to make them refutable i.e. clarify the problem which your theory is an attempt to solve, and then specify what kind of argument or experiment could be deployed as a test of that theory.

There is a peculiar view, implicit in many debates, that a good argument should compel, by the force of reason, all those who disagree to change their minds. If those who disagree have no counter-argument and continue to believe as they did before, then the argument has failed: the argument, it is said, lacks sufficient force. If the argument can be doubted, dismissed or deflected in some ad hoc manner, then this is the fault of the argument, because a good argument cannot be denied, but compels all "right-thinking" people to accept it.

There is no individual responsibility to decide what kind of criticism will be acceptable, instead that responsibility lies entirely with the argument, which should leave no room for anything as irrational as a choice, or the responsibility which accompanies that choice. If an argument fails to compel and we can choose to ignore its implications while providing no effective counter-argument, then this is a failure of the argument and not our own failure to to open ourselves to learning. In short, the argument, and not our uncritical attitude, is at fault.