Chapter 11 Agreeing or Disagreeing with an Author
Discuss the two concepts of “agreement” that exist between author and reader. (p. 151-152)
When we have read a book, and assuming it is a good book (meaning it is intelligible), we come to a point where we come to terms with an author, grasp his propositions and reasoning – Adler describes this as “sharing the author’s mind.” There is a meeting of the minds between author and reader and there is agreement about the use of language to express ideas. This is one meaning of the word agreement.
Agreement in the first sense means we understand what the author is saying and expressing. However, this does not mean that the reader necessarily agrees that the judgement the author has reached in making their points is right. Agreement in the first sense (the reader understands what the author is saying and meaning) is necessary before agreement or disagreement about the matters discussed is possible.
Assuming the reader does understand the author clearly, but still disagrees with the judgement the author has reached, what are the three conditions that should be considered to disagree appropriately? (p. 153-154)
First, the reader should acknowledge the emotions they bring into the discussion. This is done to ensure the reader is not merely venting emotions but actually stating reasons they disagree.
Second, the reader should clearly state their own assumptions and prejudices. If the reader can acknowledge what their own assumptions and prejudices are, they are more likely to acknowledge the author is entitled to their own assumptions and prejudices as well.
Finally, the reader should attempt impartiality in order to avoid partisanship. In a disagreement, the two parties involved should at least try to take the other’s point of view. This concept extends to the conversation that is occurring between reader and author. Reading a book sympathetically in this way allows for a more civil disagreement.
Adler acknowledges that these are ideal conditions of disagreement, and suggests conditions that may be easier for readers to follow.
In the absence of these ideal conditions of disagreement, Adler prescribes four ways to criticize a book fairly. The first three points deal with the whether the author’s points are reasonable and sound. Describe these three conditions. (155-159)
The first point is that the author is uninformed. The reader here is saying that the author is lacking some piece of knowledge that is relevant to the problem that is being addressed. The reader should be able to support this remark by stating the knowledge the author lacks, and indicate how this knowledge would change the author’s conclusions. Note – in science and history especially, this lack of knowledge by the author is usually discovered by later researchers.
The second point the reader can make is that the author is misinformed. This means that the author is asserting something that is not the case, something contrary to fact. The author is claiming to have knowledge they do not have. This kind of defect should be pointed out if relevant to the author’s conclusions. It is important to point out that being misinformed indicates being uninformed in a way as well. But the distinction here is that being uninformed – lacking the relevant knowledge, makes solving problems or reaching conclusions impossible. However, being misinformed leads to wrong conclusions and untenable solutions.
The third point to make is the author is illogical – meaning that the author has committed a fallacy in reasoning. There are usually two fallacies that are made – non sequiturs, where the conclusion that is drawn by the author does not actually follow from the reasons offered, and inconsistency, where two things the author has said are actually incompatible.
While the first three points of criticism dealt with soundness of the author’s statements, and deal with terms and propositions and arguments put forth by the author, the fourth point deals with how well the author actually completes his task. Discuss what is meant by this, and how this is distinguished from the first three points. (p. 158-160)
This point – distinct from the first three – looks at the book as a whole rather than individual points made by the author. What this point of criticism addresses is whether the reader thinks the author has solved all the problems they started with, if the author has not made best use of the resources available, did not see all the ramifications, or somehow has not made distinctions that are relevant to what the author set out to accomplish.
One distinction to be made – the first three points are valid points for disagreement – assuming the reader can show the author is uninformed, misinformed, or illogical. However, the fourth point is not strictly a basis for disagreement – the reader may want to suspend judgment on the author’s work on the basis of their arguments being incomplete – but may not find disagreement otherwise as described in the first three points.
** Note – assume much of the content following each discussion question is a paraphrase and comes from the book How to Read a Book.
Click here to print Chapter 11 Discussion Questions.
Michelle Home Scholar 