The Quest for Objectivity

Another stupid argument against "Fahrenheit 9/11"

Aaron Swartz posted several stupid arguments against Michael Moore's film, "Fahrenheit 9/11". I've encountered another one, on two occasions: in a discussion about consciousness, politics and the meaning of life at "De Muze" in Antwerp last week (see Geekdom Incarnate); and in a post entitled Godwin's Law: Not Meant To Be Invoked by jargonCCNA at kuro5hin.org. I expected better from both of the people involved, given that the rest of what they had to say was so insightful.

The argument is something like: "Moore, in making ad hominem diatribes against the right, engages in what the right does, making his arguments just as bad as those used by the right". Here's the relevant passage from Kuro5hin:

Godwin noticed that most people--politicians especially--have a flawed
 argumentative style. Rather than attempt to prove their point, they try 
vilify their opponent, in order to seem like the lesser of two evils... This
is what's known as a negative campaign and it doesn't always appeal
to logic or rationality, but to emotion. Both Rush Limbaugh and Michael
Moore make extravagant use of this argumentative technique. They try
to get their listeners/viewers outraged by the actions or inactions of
[insert popular figure here] without, really, explaining why said action
or inaction is actually a bad thing. Think "shock and awe", though 
perhaps "shock and appall" would be better.

There are two things wrong with this analysis:

• It fails to distinguish between criticisms of a politician that are highly relevant to that person's performance as a politician (e.g., Bush was on vacation 43% of the time in his first year of office), and criticisms that are not so relevant (e.g., Dean gets bug-eyed when empassioned). Criticisms of the former, but not the latter, kind are a valid part of rational argument. Of course, people may disagree on the degree of relevance a particular fact has to the job in question (e.g., receiving oral sex in the Oval Office from an intern).
  
• It fails to distinguish between criticisms of a politician that are true versus those that are false.
  

The defense of Moore as opposed to Limbaugh, then, is that unlike Moore, the criticisms made by Limbaugh's "negative campaign" are either irrelevant, untrue, or both.

Relevance: Does Moore really have to explain why Bush's lying, or cronyism, or illegal actions, or excessive vacationing are "bad things"?

Truth: Like Swartz, I'm happy to change my mind about Moore if someone can show me he's lying.

I should add that I haven't actually seen Moore's film (it hasn't opened in the UK yet). So I reserve to right to change my mind if I find that Moore has lied, or gone ad hominem.

From Chichester Terrace, Brighton