4.11 A self-assessment 201
If you gave the argument more credit than
this, that does not necessarily mean that you are
wrong. It may just mean that you interpreted it
more charitably. The principle of charity was
introduced in Chapter 2.7 (page 52). Its role in
assessing arguments is a very important one.
The maxim is that if there are two or more
interpretations of a text which the author could
plausibly have intended, we should settle on the
most favourable one, not the least. An
interpretation obviously has to correspond to
what the author has actually said: we can’t just
add new evidence, or change the premises to
help the author out. But if on one genuine
interpretation the author’s case is strong, and on
other(s) weak, then a fair-minded reader will
aim his or her evaluations at the strong one.
For instance, you might argue that there is
no question-begging because Dr Bossley is still
talking only about an appearance of dancing
and recreation. He is saying that dolphins look
like they are having a good time (in the way
humans do when they dance). Of course, that
weakens the premise, but it acquits it of the
fallacy. You could defend the argument
against the other two fallacy claims in a similar
way. For example: Dr Bossley is not inferring
that tail-walking follows from the lack of
evidence but just that as far as he can tell it is
just a bit of fun. Overall, too, you might want
to say that the author’s final conclusion is
quite moderate: merely that these
observations, however they are explained, add
something to the case for treating dolphins
more like we would treat ourselves; and that
the reasoning is up to supporting that claim.
There is another more radical interpretation
which we must always consider if we apply the
principle of charity fully. It is that the article is
not a serious, or hard-line, or literal argument
at all. On reading ‘Walk this way!’ you may
have felt that, whilst it was expressed in the
style of an argument, the author was really just
using it to explore an interesting idea; to try
out a hypothesis. You might say it was a
quasi-argument. That way you would interpretordinary question. Unfortunately people
often use the term ‘beg the question’ to mean
ask, or prompt or raise a question. But that is
not its traditional or technical meaning.)
There is one more classic fallacy that could
be mentioned. It is a common one, and one
you may have identified without giving it a
name. It is the fallacy of claiming that because
there is no evidence for something, it is (or is
probably) false; or, conversely if there is no
evidence against something, it is (or is
probably) true. It is known by the Latin
argumentum ad ignorantiam, meaning
argument from ignorance, or appeal to
ignorance: ‘ignorance’ meaning absence of
knowledge or evidence. (It doesn’t imply
stupidity!) Is this applicable here? Is Dr Bossley
saying that because we aren’t ‘aware’ (i.e. don’t
know) of any practical function for tail-
walking, it must have no practical function,
and therefore be recreational instead? If so,
then this is a fairly clear case of argumentum ad
ignorantiam. There could be functions of
tail-walking that no one is aware of.
The principle of charity revisited
The evaluation so far has been heavily critical.
Has it been unfair in the process? Not if the
above interpretation of the reasoning is
deemed to be fair. So long as ‘Walk this way!’ is
understood as a definite argument, giving
reasons for the conclusion that dolphins are
sufficiently like humans to deserve special
status, then it is fair to take serious issue with
it. There is insufficient evidence to infer
anything about the extent to which dolphin
intelligence or motivation resembles that of
humans. As we have seen, the author relies
upon what appears to be the case to infer what
is the case; and that is always a dangerous step.
A robot that is programmed to make the sound
of laughter may look as if it is amused by
something, but no one would say it really
found it funny. And as we have seen, there are
at least three charges of fallacies which could
be levelled at the text.