In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader queries:
Let's say I'm writing a paper where I defend a claim P. P is not the main thesis of the paper but a premise in the main argument. I often find myself giving two or three independent arguments for P, each of which I take to be sufficient. In my mind, this makes a stronger case for P. Even if you don't find one argument compelling, you might find the other ones compelling.
But then what often happens is that referees object to *one* of these arguments for P, and the paper gets rejected. This makes me question this strategy of giving more than one argument for some claim. I wonder if others had a similar experience or have thoughts about this strategy.
Another reader submitted the following reply:
A few points. 1. I would take out any arguments that are weak, even if they support the premise. A weak argument weakens the paper even if not the argument. 2. If all the arguments are strong, you could try nipping this in the bud by being explicit: 'For good measure I will offer three arguments for P, although I think even argument 1 is strong enough' or something. 3. Put the strongest arguments first and last. 4. It might be that the referees reject the paper for other reasons but give you this feedback anyway. That they said what's wrong with this argument doesn't mean that this is why it's being rejected.
These seem like nice suggestions, but I'm curious what others think. Having published a lot, I think that I learned one potentially helpful rule of thumb a while ago: the more you say in a paper, the more likely it is that referees will find something to object to and reject the paper--so, whenever possible, say less. I learned this rule of thumb more or less by having the kinds of experiences the OP reports here. As they note, when they give three arguments for P, it seems like there's always a referee who has a problem with one of them. So, giving more arguments may not be helpful. Maybe the best thing to do is to give one argument, and make sure that it's as convincing as possible.
On that note, here's another rule of thumb that I remember someone telling me at some point: if you have a good argument, more arguments aren't necessary. After all, a sound argument is a sound argument. So, if you have one really good one, why not just give that one and let the others go?
Finally, here's a third rule of thumb that I've learned: don't make stronger claims in a paper than you need to. For the OP: do you really need an argument for P, if P is a premise? Would it be at all possible to simply write in the paper that you're assuming P, that P seems plausible (or should seem plausible to your interlocutors), and then tell your reader that you're going to show that something really cool/important follows? In my experience, this can be good enough, and it obviates the need to actually defend P!
But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?
I suppose an approach somewhat between the OP's and Marcus' is to explain which of the arguments in favour of P will appeal to what type of reader.
For example, it might be the case that Argument 1 very strong but only (or particularly) appealing to scientific realists, and holds less appeal for an anti-realist. Argument 2, on the other hand, might be a little weaker, but appeal to realists and anti-realists equally.
Or, for example, you might find a premise in Argument 3 independently plausible but you don't want to defend it in the paper. Then you can note that Argument 3 is appealing to those who, like you, already find that premise compelling, but that other readers might be more convinced by one of the other arguments.
Posted by: UK Postdoc | 06/13/2022 at 09:27 AM
Sometimes it's nice to have independent reasons to adopt a controversial or unintuitive premise. But I would opt for making it explicit that each reason offered is sufficient.
Posted by: Michel | 06/13/2022 at 09:29 AM
I know this isn't really helpful advice, but I find it amusing: in the little book "The Art of Being Right" (a title that became even more glorious after Trump), Schopenhauer gives 38 tips for winning an argument even if you're in the weaker position. One of those tips is exactly what you are worried about: pick the weakest argument your opponent has given and talk exclusively about that.
More seriously, I agree that a reviewer should point out all weaknesses, even if they are not essential to your main argument. But I think using Marcus's last tip, you can make sure those objections don't lead to a straight rejection. You could say something like: "In this paper, I will be assuming that P. Here are a few quick reasons why you might think that P...." (If those reasons are complicated, it probably makes more sense to write a separate paper arguing for P anyway.)
Posted by: Tammo | 06/13/2022 at 09:33 AM
I mostly agree with the advice already given. I would just add two things. 1. It seems to me that referees typically operate by trying to find something to disagree with. If they find something that's not obviously and easily fixable, they recommend rejection. (This is of course painting with a very broad brush.) So I think just as the OP seems to have gleaned, it is better *for publishing* to eliminate as much as possible, but this is in fact irrational. 2. This practice is bad for philosophy. Even a bad argument shouldn't affect one's belief in the conclusion, if the other arguments are good (all else being equal). Also, it limits us to saying mostly fairly obvious things and making small moves.
Posted by: Evan | 06/13/2022 at 09:53 AM
Something to consider: do your referees disagree with you about how controversial P is? That is, if P really is a consistent sticking point, the real issue might not be that referees are focusing too much on one of your reasons for accepting P. Instead the real issue might be the question of how much support P should be getting overall.
Posted by: anon | 06/13/2022 at 01:13 PM
I think some of the remarks above have a unrealistic view of the power of arguments. They are oblivious to the rhetorical dimension of philosophy and philosophical persuasion. We get this from reading Plato, who degraded rhetoric. Oddly, Plato won our hearts and souls with his rhetoric.
Posted by: Crito | 06/14/2022 at 12:50 AM
If P is not the main point of the paper but a starting position, you might consider moving all the arguments to a footnote or simply cite other works that make the case for P and move on to your main point.
Posted by: Joe | 06/16/2022 at 02:56 PM