This was new to me. Not the differing forms of disagreement, but that someone bothered to put it into a simple but convincing hierarchy. Nice!
From the original article:
“…the first form of convincing disagreement [is] counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it’s hard to say exactly what.
Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it’s common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don’t realize it.”.
Sounds so much like the climate debate. Sadly these days there’s so much noise and vehemence.
“The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It’s also the rarest, because it’s the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.”
Like an iceberg. The major part below the water can do an awful lot of damage. Does Twitter count? Hard to refute well in 140 characters or less.