Discussing controversial issues sometimes doesn’t go well. One reason is that people often lack—or forget—the ability to distinguish between things that are importantly different. When it comes to arguments—reasons offered in support of a conclusion—there are some key distinctions worth remembering:
The conclusion and the premises offered to support it are separate and should not be confused.
Critiquing premises—for being false, unreasonable, or not logically related to the conclusion—does not require rejecting the conclusion.
One can critique an argument’s premises without taking any stance on whether the conclusion is true or false.
One can reject some premises while acknowledging that other, better premises might support the same conclusion.
When someone critiques the reasons given for a conclusion, they are not necessarily rejecting or accepting the conclusion itself. They are simply saying: this is a bad argument for that conclusion.
While many “debates” (especially online) are a good occasion for reflections like these, these were inspired by a recent email interaction I had with the Editor of The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly. The interaction with this Editor and its backstory is pasted below at 1. After it are some brief further reflections from me at 2.
1.
In May 2025, I received an email from the Managing Editor of The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly seeking permission to extensively quote from our 2021 Salon magazine article, “Why the case against abortion is weak, ethically speaking.” My co-author and I gave our permission.
On Friday, July 18, the Managing Editor emailed me a commentary article about our article by Christopher Kaczor. The email included this (emphasis added by me):
. . this is one of several of our regular columns by a regular columnist that reports on, reviews, and responds to select publications in philosophy and theology, especially but not exclusively in journals . . You can decide if this column warrants a reply.
Since our principal scope is Catholic bioethics, we do have an editorial policy in our submission guidelines that “the NCBQ is committed to publishing material that is consonant with the magisterium of the Catholic Church” and “We do not publish any work advancing views that are clearly contrary to established teachings of the Catholic Church.” Basically, we wouldn’t be willing to publish a defense of the permissibility of direct procured abortion, for example, but we would be willing to publish a letter critiquing the columnist’s argument, defending yourself against misrepresentation or misunderstanding or the like, or pointing to other publications where you have already responded to his concerns.
On July 24th, I submitted a reply article—“Reply to Christopher Kaczor on Abortion” (also on Substack) to the Managing Editor, who said he would forward it to the Editor in Chief for review. Here’s the discussion that followed (with a few typos corrected):
1:05 PM
On Thu, Thursday, Jul 24, 2025 at 1:05 PM Ted Furton wrote:
Dr. Nobles,
We have received your reply to Dr. Christopher Kaczor concerning abortion.
Your reply generally argues that moral arguments offered in opposition to the killing of unborn human beings are false and that therefore the practice should be permissible (except, if I understand, for late term pregnancies). Our journal does not print submissions that contradict established Catholic teaching on moral matters.
The Managing Editor has suggested that your reply and perhaps a further response from Dr. Kaczor might be published in another journal so that the discussion can continue. We would be happy to facilitate that effort, if we can.
Thank you for your kindness in allowing us to print extended sections of your original article from Salon in our journal.
Edward (Ted) Furton
Director of Publications and Ethicist
The National Catholic Bioethics Center
Editor-in-Chief
The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly
Editor
Ethics & Medics
1:20 PM
From: Nathan Nobis
Sent: Thursday, Thursday, July 24, 2025 1:20 PM
To: Ted Furton
Cc: Daniel Traceski
Subject: Re: Reply to Kaczor
Dear Mr. Furton,
Thank you for your response but your evaluation here doesn't seem to be correct. This was a response article that showed that Kaczor's objections to our arguments and claims were poor. This was not any new defense, or really any defense, of our positive claims: it was just "these critiques are weak and here's why." I was told earlier that such a response would be allowable.
If you have any ideas for other forums that might be interested in this, or have a way to help facilitate that, that would be much appreciated.
Thank you!
Nathan
2:10 PM
On Thu, Thursday, Jul 24, 2025 at 2:10 PM Ted Furton wrote:
Nathan,
The claims of weakness in Dr. Kaczor’s arguments are difficult to separate from the substance of your position. You hold that his arguments fail. Therefore, it follows that your position in defense of abortion is untouched and so remains true.
May we send your comments to Kaczor? That may lead to some suggestions about how to proceed from here.
Ted
2:26 PM
From: Nathan Nobis
Sent: Thursday, Thursday, July 24, 2025 2:26 PM
To: Ted Furton
Cc: Daniel Traceski ; Jonathan Dudley
Subject: Re: Reply to Kaczor
Ted,
Yes, feel free to send it along.
Since this is important, I do, however, want to point out that your conclusion does not follow here:
"You hold that his arguments fail. [yes] Therefore, it follows that your position in defense of abortion is untouched [yes, untouched by those objections] and so remains true. [no: that does not follow: that some claims/arguments are poor objections to some arguments for conclusion p does not entail that p is true or that p is supported by good arguments: that's a separate matter, requiring a separate "positive" defense].
I do want to share what I was told earlier:
we wouldn’t be willing to publish a defense of the permissibility of direct procured abortion, for example, but we would be willing to publish a letter critiquing the columnist’s argument, defending yourself against misrepresentation or misunderstanding or the like, or pointing to other publications where you have already responded to his concerns.
Or if you prefer, there is no reason why the discussion couldn’t take place between our journal and another publication.
What I am unclear on now is whether your policy means that really pretty much any critique of these critiques would be considered a defense of the permissibility of abortion---since any saying "well, this was a poor reason to think that this pro-choice argument was a bad argument" is, in a way, a kind of defense of abortion---and so this is pretty much an impossible task here, for this forum.
Thank you!
Nathan
2:43 PM
On Thu, Thursday, Jul 24, 2025, 2:43 PM Ted Furton wrote:
Nathan,
Thanks for your observations, but this is not merely a matter of logic. Perhaps I erred in encouraging a response from you and Dr. Dudley, but I wanted to see if it might work.
I will let Dr. Kaczor know of your reply to his critique.
Ted
3:22 PM
From Nathan Nobis, Thu, Jul 24, 3:22 PM to Ted, Daniel, Jonathan
Ted,
You are correct that this is not merely a matter of logic.
Presumably, you want people to think abortion is wrong, on the basis of good arguments. And you want people to have responses to pro-choice arguments that are, or are based on, good arguments.
Kaczor's responses to our arguments were very poor. Not considering publishing something that shows this because of the (logical) error of not distinguishing "these objections to arguments for p are poor" and "here are good arguments for p" is bad. This results in your readers missing an opportunity to have a stronger understanding and better arguments on these issues.
Now, we have no "right" to a reply here, or even a reply being considered, but some offer for a reply was given. If this really was an impossible task, since almost any response would have been perceived as a positive argument for abortion, then that offer should have never been made.
Thank you,
Nathan
(There was no response to this message).
2.
Logical errors and confusion are not surprising from people who have no formal education about argumentation. I hear things like this all the time from people online, about many claims p:
“You say this is a bad argument for p? Why don't you believe p?! You must think not-p!!!”
But academia and scholarly inquiry are under increasing pressure from various cultural and political forces. Irresponsible engagement—especially by those who should know better—only adds to this problem. When accomplished scholars or institutional authority figures fail to uphold standards of clear reasoning, fair engagement, and intellectual honesty, they undermine the very credibility of scholarly expertise.
This kind of (unapologetic) response also reflects a form of tribalism. While it may not be surprising that a religiously affiliated journal—one operating within a framework committed to particular doctrinal conclusions—would tend toward confirmation bias, it is nonetheless disappointing when this bias results in publishing arguments of poor quality while declining to engage serious, critical responses.
What’s especially troubling is that such a posture appears to contradict the journal’s own stated values. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly describes itself as seeking to “foster intellectual inquiry” and to publish work that engages in “reasoned and rigorous reflection,” with openness to “all philosophical traditions in the spirit of informed dialogue.” When critiques are excluded not because they are poorly reasoned, but because they challenge a predetermined conclusion, those values are not being honored.
No comments:
Post a Comment