Don't Criticize if you Have no Solution

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
Ergasiophobic
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am

Don't Criticize if you Have no Solution

Post by Ergasiophobic »

I see this used so often to stifle dissent. That any criticism one provides that does not also include a solution is thereby rendered invalid.

Would you consider this to be a type of logical fallacy?

Certainly one could be an expert at observation and/or critique without having any ability to be an expert provider of solutions.

I found a few threads on the subject, but not much.

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thre ... 70487.html

http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/que ... e-solution

A third argument was:
"Its like driving somewhere in a car. If you go to turn right at a 4 way stop sign and the guy in the seat next to you says "don't turn right" does that really help you get where you need to go?" https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/t ... 920/page-3


Isn't that the point? Is it really his job to "help you get where you need to go," or just to make sure that you don't turn right? Perhaps if you turn right you'll die. e.g. He sees a truck approaching in the wrong lane that you don't/can't see. If he doesn't then tell you which way you should go, should you just assume he's an idiot and continue to turn right?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Don't Criticize if you Have no Solution

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Nearly all "solutions" are the result of an endless sequence of criticisms and doubt. A whole load of "don't turn right" moments!

And even after a solution would be implemented, a new round of valid criticisms can start to explore all the oversights, downsides and to wonder if it might not be better to turn around and try something else. These are important parts of every healthy dialog when of course kept within reason.

I'm not sure about the fallacy part. It's more that the normal dialectic takes a form of thesis or proposition and then the arrival of the anti-thesis of challenge. Any focus on solutions as you mention is often a form of utilitarianism or perhaps just consequentialism.

Any discussion which transcends the necessity of meaning or average morality will be out of bounds, useless for utilitarists. Which appears to be common for technocrats, this whole modern notion of technology and progress as belief system. Add to that the selfishness of individualism (what does it help me?) and there you have the basis for the dislike of anything which doesn't provide clear-cut solutions or advancement.

Perhaps philosophy only desires to advance philosophy? Any other motive would quickly become bias.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Don't Criticize if you Have no Solution

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Any discussion which transcends the necessity of meaning or average morality will be out of bounds, useless for utilitarists.
You could say that for idealists as well. Any discussion which transcends the necessity of the Idea will be out of bounds. The problem is that the utilitarianists are too idealistic. Their ideal is basically absolute contentment, which they masquerade as "reasonable" contentment. But any idea of contentment *necessarily* idealistic, since in order to posit it one has to assume that a primary source of contentment exists which bestows grace upon all who manage to obtain it. True utilitarianism is that which can never transcend anything, since it has a use for everything ("Blessed are the meek"?).

Consider the sheer pragmatism of this remark by the Buddha:

"The greatest miracle is to know the truth and make it known to others."
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Don't Criticize if you Have no Solution

Post by Russell Parr »

The phrase "conspiracy theory" comes to mind. Most westerners don't even know what the phrase means anymore. Contemplating how and why certain people would use government agencies to carry out large scale selfish agendas is synonymous with simply hating our "imperfect, though well-meaning" leaders for no other reason than paranoia. It's how the Nazis gained power: through subservience.

It all ties into postmodernism, doesn't it? If it doesn't ultimately lead to the pleasuring of an unconscious, ego-satisfying attachment in the short term, then it is 'incomplete' or 'pointless' at best.

edit: I should be careful not to completely justify conspiracy theories, for too often it is another form of egotism, in providing a 'quick hit' of self-righteousness, making one feel superior. Heck.. didn't exactly use "postmodernism" correctly either. What I'm trying to say is people don't really care about Truth, only small "truths" that satisfy them in the now.
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: Don't Criticize if you Have no Solution

Post by ardy »

The ability to critique is lost as we all have opinions and none come without an agenda, or a care of those they are are criticising. The opposite is almost as prevalent and certainly as bad, a dismissal of any criticism as 'negative shit'.

We cannot go anywhere or do anything effectively without criticism but to discriminate between good and bad criticism is the hard part. Look at how Sibelius was affected so badly in his early 60's that he did not create another piece of music until his death. We lost over 20 years of creativity due to overly strong criticism.

Archimede Seguso a Murano glass maker I collect did not hear one word of praise from his father until he had been working for 14 years. This critical approach along with his natural talent ensured he became one of the greats. This seems lost today where all win prizes and individual high attainment is not praised but is thought to come from feeling confident or natural skill rather than hard work and attainment.

The OP's statement has validity in the business world but little in the world of thought or artistic endeavour.
Ergasiophobic
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am

Re: Don't Criticize if you Have no Solution

Post by Ergasiophobic »

I considered it a fallacy because I consider a fallacy to be when one purports to have won a debate without actually proving the other person wrong, and that is how this is mostly used. It is used as a method of saying, "You are wrong because you have provided no solution." Which is absurd.

If I say that jumping off a cliff is a bad idea you can't say i'm wrong simply because I have not suggested the invention of a hang glider.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Don't Criticize if you Have no Solution

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Ergasiophobic wrote: If I say that jumping off a cliff is a bad idea you can't say i'm wrong simply because I have not suggested the invention of a hang glider.
A more realistic situation might be "we need to move forward as we cannot stop [presented as axiomatic truth] so you need to provide an alternative for the necessary jump ahead". In that instance, providing no solution for the coming abyss is indeed not helpful. But underneath this is the given axiom of the position "we are moving forward" and "there's a cliff on the path". The proper criticism would then be to require some evidence on those two positions, do they necessarily hold? Perhaps this is another version of the argument from ignorance. Of course "jumping of a cliff is dangerous" is also something that might be in need of evidence [is it always true?] unless it's taken as a given without a need to qualify.

A statement like "its a bad idea" has little content but functions here as a warning to reevaluate the whole situation. But warning signs are not in themselves arguments or positions. Wrong or right. That said, it's always very hard to prove a "wrong". Like proving there's no pink unicorn on Mars. In terms of proof we need positive theory first. You don't win because you prove everyone else wrong but because there's sufficient evidence that you are right, evidence which allows to be challenged and cannot be overturned. Of course anyone else can propose something different with even more evidence which need to be falsifiable, that is, there must be a method to measure its coherence and factuality.

The proper thing here would have been not the statement ""you have no solution" but "you have no alternative position". It's like evolution theory, to challenge it is one thing but to overturn will need another theory providing scientific explanations for all the stuff being found, their age, shapes and forms. Shooting a hole in the theory is not enough to win. It only would show the theory needs to improve a bit more.
Morse
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2016 9:41 pm

Re: Don't Criticize if you Have no Solution

Post by Morse »

Ergasiophobic wrote:I see this used so often to stifle dissent. That any criticism one provides that does not also include a solution is thereby rendered invalid.

Would you consider this to be a type of logical fallacy?
More like a category error. In a couple of ways. First it sounds itself like some kind of practical rule, but it is in fact an ungrounded moral rule. Second it acts as if the two processes need be the same. As you point out one might have skills at noticing problems, but not solutions. Also often change comes in a reaction to problems, and when a critical mass of people decide something needs to change, then the ground is set for change. It is not incidental if people do not see a problem or take something as eternal and given. So pointing out there is a problem can be a very early stage in a process.
Locked