This post, "Forbes' Rich List of Nonsense" over at Real Climate talks about some of the tactics used by arguers in the climate change debate. These tactics are introduced in a commentary that picks apart a Forbes magazine article "Hot Sensations Vs. Cold Facts".
One argumentative technique that is quite interesting is the so called Gish Gallop in which an arguer raises many obscure and marginal points in order to make their opponents position appear to be doubtful and unsupported. This relies on the complexity of the domain under discussion, and the fact that an adequately prepared attacker can raise a barrage of points that the defender cannot hope to address in sufficient depth in real time. These points are used to persuade the audience of the instability of the argued position whilst the attacker, by appearing to know more than the defender or at least appearing to pick holes in the argument that on the surface appear to unravel it entirely, gains a temporarily strong position. This is what makes the Gish Gallop so devastating, the attacker only has to raise doubts, they do not have to support their attacking position, whilst the defender has to raise a defeating counter argument against each point raised to keep their audience. This suggests a fundamental imbalance in that the attacking party need not support their countering assertions they merely need raise them.
In one sense this is not such a terrible thing, if I want to convince you of something then I should be able to assemble a supporting argument and successfully repel any attacks. Without reason to reject my position, a rationale person should accept my justified conclusions until a successful counter-argument is found. The problem is that many arguments in scientific domains rely on a level of background knowledge that the audience to the dialogue may not have. To address each of the points raised by the attacker may take a lot of time, perhaps more than is available during a debate,
There are two factors that make the Gish Gallop so devastating:
- An audience to be swayed
- A real time debate
Well lets look at when this kind of technique is used. This kind of technique is very useful when the issue at stake is decided in the public arena, or at least where the public has a lot of input into the final decision making process. It is not about persuading your opponent but about persuading persons other than your opponent. This is the first aspect that has to be recognised. Many of us, especially those with a scientific background, naturally argue against our opponent because we relish the engagements with our ideas, but quite often, especially within certain domains, we don't recognise that there is an associated public interest and that our attacker may not care about arguing with us but may care more about being seen to argue with us. So we have to recognise that the aim of the argument may be to persuade an audience rather than our opponent, and that persuading an audience is different to persuading an individual.
Given sufficient time to fully address each point, the Gish Gallop is not a devastating technique. It is only when the time factor is included that it is harmful. Therefore, as an arguer you have to recognise when it is being used against you and meet the technique head on. A potential defence against the Gallop is suggested above. The audience naturally assumes that the defender must defend against all attacks and the attacker need only make the attack and sit back whilst the defender addresses every point. I agree, a defender must address each relevent point raised against their position if only as a matter of due diligence in ensuring that you can defend against each potential attack should they be raised again in the future. That said, because of the constraints of the dialogues in the kind of situations where the Gallop is used, it can be difficult to respond to every point. One technique to use to mitigate the destructiveness of the Gallop is to reflect the attack back onto the attacker. Instead of immediately responding to the attack by defending against it, ensure that for each attacking point made, the defender can establish how that attack is relevant and why it should be defended against. It is easy for the attacker to wield a shallow knowledge of the domain to make an argument appear weak and easily attacked but if the attacker is vigorously engaged and made to spell out clearly how the attack is valid and relevant then they need more knowledge than just a bulleted list of attacks, they need a broad, holistic knowledge of the domain. Given that this kind of attack is played out in the public arena, and works because it is intended to sway the audience rather than the opponent, the counter works because it is also directed towards the audience and rebalances the dialogue. If the defender must adequately defend against all attacks then it is reasonable to make the attacker first establish that those attacks are actually relevant and have a bearing on the dialoge. Otherwise we are just looking at a relation of the Chewbacca defence.
