I have always been more talented at exposing flaws in reasoning or hypocrisy in actions than in constructing anything to replace what I criticize. Naturally many people are bothered when they're criticized and aggravated beyond that when not presented with an alternative. What is the status of this ability? Should someone hold his silence if he has nothing better to offer, or is just being critical worthy by itself?

Comments

Is it worth exposing flaws in the reasoning for a position, even if you haven't something better to replace it with? Certainly. At the very least, revealing flaws ought to make proponents less dogmatic in their endorsing of the position: they should proceed with caution in trying to implement policies based on the position, not close off the consideration of counter-proposals, etc. etc. All of which consquences are, in general, surely to be encouraged!

It strikes me as very 'Socratic' to expose flaws in reasoning even if you don't have claims of your own to make. However, we should also remember that things didn't end well for Socrates (at least not by conventional measures.... I sometimes joke that Socrates was the first person in history that was executed mostly for being annoying). More seriously, it is important to remember that relationships are valuable and in many cases it isn't worth alienating friends over minor flaws in reasoning.

Read another response by Peter Smith, Eric Silverman

Read another response about Ethics, Logic