August 9, 2025

Preface

A Framework for Hypothesis Testing

This essay does not purport to be truth but rather seeks to generate hypotheses and tests in the spirit of John Dewey’s approach to inquiry. Dewey emphasized that ideas should be treated as working hypotheses to be tested through experience and investigation, rather than as fixed doctrines to be accepted or rejected wholesale. In this spirit, the patterns and frameworks presented here are offered as provisional tools for analysis, subject to revision through ongoing observation and debate.

The observations and claims presented here should be understood explicitly as propositions for further investigation and debate, not as definitive conclusions about the phenomena they describe. Each pattern identified, each technique described, and each analytical framework proposed requires empirical testing through readers’ own experiences with public intellectual discourse. The goal is to provide starting points for inquiry rather than endpoints for belief.

Such hypothesis-generating approaches are valuable for democracy because they provide citizens with conceptual frameworks for evaluating public discourse without demanding immediate acceptance of particular conclusions. Democratic engagement requires the ability to recognize and analyze different forms of argumentation, distinguishing between those that advance genuine inquiry and those that may serve other purposes. By developing analytical tools for recognizing rhetorical patterns, citizens become better equipped to participate meaningfully in public debates about complex issues.

Critical engagement similarly benefits from systematic approaches to identifying argumentative strategies. Rather than relying solely on intuitive reactions to public discourse, frameworks like those presented here allow for more deliberate analysis of how arguments function, what they accomplish, and what they might obscure. This analytical distance can help preserve space for substantive disagreement while recognizing when discourse may be moving away from productive engagement.

The content was generated through AI (Claude) in response to prompts by Jonathan Michael Feldman exploring patterns of argumentation in contemporary intellectual discourse, with subsequent refinements informed by AI analysis from DeepSeek. Despite legitimate concerns about AI’s limitations in understanding context and nuance, AI tools offer several valuable capabilities for hypothesis generation in this domain:

Contemporary critiques of AI often focus on its potential for perpetuating bias, lacking contextual understanding, or producing overly mechanistic analysis (Noble, 2018; O’Neil, 2016; Benjamin, 2019). While these concerns merit attention, they sometimes sidestep a more fundamental issue: how social media platforms themselves deploy sophisticated manipulation techniques that transcend simple left-right political divisions. The very behaviors that AI critics identify as problematic—amplifying biases, reducing complex issues to simplistic patterns, lacking nuanced contextual understanding—are equally prevalent among human participants in digital discourse (Tufekci, 2017).

Both progressive and conservative voices participate in rhetorical ecosystems that reward emotional engagement over substantive analysis, viral content over rigorous inquiry, and tribal validation over genuine debate (Vosoughi et al., 2018). Human users routinely engage in confirmation bias, selective evidence presentation, and algorithmic manipulation of audience emotions—the same practices they critique in AI systems. In this context, AI’s capacity for pattern recognition—however imperfect—may offer useful analytical distance from the very dynamics it seeks to identify.

First, AI can synthesize patterns across large bodies of literature without the confirmation bias that often shapes human pattern recognition. While this doesn’t guarantee accuracy, it can surface connections and frameworks that might not emerge from more conventional research approaches.

Second, AI operates without the social and professional incentives that can influence human intellectual discourse. Academic and public intellectuals often have stakes in particular positions or relationships that may unconsciously shape their analysis. AI lacks these social dynamics, potentially offering more disinterested pattern recognition.

Third, AI can rapidly process and combine insights from diverse disciplines—rhetoric, psychology, communication studies, political science—in ways that human specialists might not achieve due to disciplinary boundaries and time constraints.

Fourth, AI can articulate frameworks with systematic precision, forcing explicit definition of terms and relationships that human discourse sometimes leaves implicit or ambiguous. This precision, while sometimes mechanical, can reveal assumptions and logical structures that merit examination.

Fifth, AI-generated hypotheses can serve as neutral starting points for discussion, allowing human participants to engage with ideas on their merits rather than through the lens of personal or institutional loyalties that often shape academic discourse.

This essay outlines common patterns of sophisticated rhetorical deflection used in public intellectual discourse. It identifies five main techniques — Target Substitution, Straw-Manning with Plausible Deniability, Intent-Based Deflection, Intellectual Condescension, and Category Collapse — and explains how they allow a speaker to appear responsive while avoiding engagement with the strongest points of a critique. Drawing on research in rhetoric, communication, and social psychology, it emphasizes that these moves can sometimes be legitimate in other contexts but become problematic when used to sidestep accountability. The essay also examines how social media amplifies such strategies, rewarding performance and group loyalty over substantive analysis. The goal is to provide readers with analytical tools to recognize when rhetorical skill serves clarity and truth-seeking versus when it functions as a shield against them.

These analytical frameworks should be treated as testable hypotheses rather than established facts. Readers are strongly encouraged to examine these proposed patterns against their own observations and experiences of public intellectual discourse, revising or rejecting elements that do not withstand scrutiny.

Public intellectual discourse often involves heated disagreements over complex issues. While robust debate is healthy, some argumentative patterns can undermine genuine intellectual engagement (Mercier & Sperber, 2017). Understanding these patterns helps us distinguish between good-faith disagreement and sophisticated forms of deflection that prioritize winning over truth-seeking (Kahan et al., 2012).

Target Substitution Strategy: A Case Study

When faced with substantive criticism, some intellectuals shift focus from defending their original arguments to attacking the source or method of criticism itself. Rather than engaging with specific logical weaknesses, they reframe the entire exchange as being about the unreliability of critics, analytical tools, or institutional contexts (Walton, 1998).

Consider how this might manifest in academic discourse: A scholar publishes an argument relying heavily on appeals to authority from carefully selected sources. When critiqued for this methodological choice, rather than defending the selection criteria or engaging with counter-evidence, the scholar pivots to questioning the critic’s credentials, the analytical framework being used, or the institutional context in which such criticism emerges. The response appears substantive while actually avoiding the core methodological questions raised.

This technique is particularly effective because it appears to address the criticism while actually avoiding it entirely. The meta-narrative becomes about the flaws of the critique mechanism rather than the substance of the original argument. Audiences often find these meta-discussions more engaging than dry logical analysis, making this strategy socially rewarding even when intellectually hollow (Tetlock, 2005).

Straw-Manning with Plausible Deniability

Sophisticated deflection often involves subtle mischaracterization of opponents’ positions. Rather than crude straw-manning, skilled rhetoricians create plausibly defensible interpretations of their critics’ views that are nonetheless easier to refute than the actual positions held (Aikin & Casey, 2011).

This technique works by taking statements that were clearly qualified or contextualized and treating them as absolute claims. The deflector can then appear reasonable while addressing positions their opponents never actually took. When called out, they can point to ambiguous phrasing that technically supports their interpretation, maintaining deniability (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004).

Intent-Based Deflection from Methodological Critique

When people are criticized for using questionable argument tactics—like relying too heavily on expert opinions without examining the evidence, or selectively choosing only the sources that support their view—skilled arguers often defend themselves by explaining their motives rather than addressing whether their methods were actually valid. They might admit to using these techniques but claim they were justified because of what they were trying to accomplish or who their audience was (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969).

This response sidesteps the real issue by mixing up two different questions: why someone chose a particular approach versus whether that approach was logically sound. Just because someone had good reasons for wanting to persuade their audience doesn’t make their argument methods any stronger. An argument that leans too heavily on authority figures is still logically weak, even if the person had strategic reasons for structuring it that way. Similarly, cherry-picking sources—choosing only evidence that supports your position while ignoring contradictory evidence—remains a flawed method regardless of the arguer’s intentions or audience considerations (Walton, 1997).

The key point is that having good intentions or strategic goals doesn’t fix the underlying logical or evidential problems in how the argument was constructed.

Some might argue that the cherry-picking accusation misunderstands the communicative purpose at hand. According to this view, when someone selects particular voices or authorities, they may not be attempting to provide a comprehensive scholarly survey but rather to demonstrate that people readers might relate to or respect have arrived at similar conclusions (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969). This approach prioritizes establishing common ground and credibility through shared identification over exhaustive evidence review.

Additionally, critics of the term “cherry-picking” suggest it represents linguistic overreach—a phrase that has migrated inappropriately from specialized academic or scientific contexts into everyday discourse (Nickerson, 1998). From this perspective, applying formal standards of evidence evaluation, which are appropriate in systematic research, to ordinary conversations and arguments that weren’t designed to meet such methodological criteria imposes rigid analytical frameworks where they may not belong (Klayman & Ha, 1987).

However, this defense actually illustrates the very problem it attempts to dismiss. When someone explicitly chooses sources based on reader identification rather than evidential quality, they are by definition selecting evidence for reasons other than its probative value—which is precisely what cherry-picking describes. The intentional nature of this selection makes it more problematic, not less, as it prioritizes persuasive effect over truth-seeking. Moreover, the complaint about terminological migration itself engages in selective argumentation, focusing only on contexts where rigorous evidence standards might seem burdensome while ignoring situations where such standards protect against manipulation and bias.

Intellectual Condescension: Manifestation in Peer Review

Rather than engaging with the substance of criticism, some academics dismiss challenges by characterizing them as unsophisticated or juvenile. This technique positions the deflector as intellectually superior while avoiding the actual work of refutation (Bourdieu, 1991).

In peer review contexts, this might appear as: “The reviewer’s comments reflect a troubling misunderstanding of contemporary theoretical frameworks” or “This critique employs the kind of binary thinking that more sophisticated analysis has moved beyond.” Such responses create the impression of addressing criticism while actually dismissing it based on purported sophistication levels rather than logical merit.

Common variations include describing critiques as “high school debate tactics,” “missing nuance,” or reflecting a “simplistic binary mindset.” This approach is particularly insidious because it exploits academic hierarchies and social psychology—audiences may defer to apparent expertise rather than evaluating the logical merits independently (Cialdini, 2007).

Category Collapse: Boundary Erosion

When specific practices are criticized, skilled deflectors sometimes invoke broader categories that encompass those practices as inherently legitimate. If accused of being too advocacy-oriented rather than analytical, they might argue that all intellectual work involves both elements, making the distinction meaningless (Burke, 1969).

This technique becomes problematic when it eliminates useful distinctions by claiming that since categories always overlap, no specific case can be fairly criticized for crossing reasonable boundaries. For instance, while political theory does inherently combine analysis and advocacy, this general truth doesn’t protect particular works from legitimate criticism about whether they maintain adequate analytical standards. The deflector exploits the broad principle (that categories naturally overlap) to dodge accountability for specific instances that may have violated established professional or intellectual standards.

There’s an important difference between two approaches to category boundaries. Legitimate boundary questioning happens when someone genuinely explores difficult cases to better understand where one category ends and another begins—this kind of inquiry helps us think more clearly about complex issues. But tactical boundary erasure works differently: it invokes the complexity of boundaries not to deepen understanding, but simply to avoid having to defend specific choices or practices (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). The first approach asks “Where exactly should we draw this line and why?” The second approach declares “Since lines are always blurry, you can’t criticize where I’ve drawn mine.” One advances knowledge; the other just provides cover for questionable practices.

The Sophistication Problem

These techniques are especially troublesome because they take advantage of the natural complexity found in serious intellectual discussions. Unlike obvious logical errors or clear bad faith arguments, sophisticated deflection often uses moves that would be perfectly reasonable in different situations (Fogelin, 1985). The same kind of nuanced thinking that makes someone an effective teacher or thoughtful scholar can be turned into a tool for avoiding criticism and responsibility.

This creates a tricky situation: people listening to these responses may find them convincing exactly because they sound intellectually impressive, even when that impressive-sounding reasoning is actually being used to hide problems rather than address them (Frankfurt, 2005). The deflector’s apparent sophistication can make audiences less likely to notice that the real issues are being sidestepped. In essence, intellectual skill becomes a form of camouflage—the more sophisticated the deflection sounds, the harder it becomes for others to see that substantive questions remain unanswered.

Recognition and Counter-Strategies

Identifying these patterns requires distinguishing between legitimate contextual explanation and strategic deflection. Key questions include:

• Is the response addressing the strongest version of the original critique? (Steel, 2010)
• Are methodological criticisms being answered with methodological defenses, or with explanations of intent?
• Is the discussion moving toward greater clarity and precision, or becoming more abstract and meta-analytical?
• Are specific claims being defended with specific evidence, or are broader categories being invoked to avoid particular accountability? (Paul & Elder, 2019)

Counter-strategies for productive engagement include:

Steelmanning: Deliberately engaging with the strongest possible version of an opponent’s argument rather than weaker formulations (Sinnott-Armstrong & Fogelin, 2010). This practice forces genuine engagement with substantial challenges while demonstrating intellectual integrity.

Meta-discourse transparency: Explicitly identifying rhetorical moves during debate can help maintain focus on substance. For example: “I notice this response shifts from defending the original methodology to questioning my credentials—can we return to the evidential questions?”

Diagnostic framing: When deflection occurs, refocusing discussion on specific diagnostic questions can restore substantive engagement: “Let’s examine whether this response addresses the core logical structure of the critique or introduces new topics.”

The Stakes of Recognition

These patterns matter because they can undermine the very possibility of productive intellectual disagreement. When sophisticated rhetorical skill is used to avoid rather than engage substantive criticism, it corrupts the discourse it appears to elevate (Habermas, 1981).

Public intellectuals have particular responsibilities given their platforms and influence (Said, 1994). Recognizing when rhetorical sophistication serves deflection rather than engagement helps preserve space for the kind of rigorous, good-faith debate that complex issues require.

The goal is not to eliminate passionate advocacy or contextual explanation from intellectual discourse, but to distinguish between these legitimate practices and their sophisticated but hollow counterfeits (Toulmin, 2003). In an information environment already struggling with questions of authority and truth, this distinction becomes ever more crucial (Nichols, 2017).

Social Media Amplification of Deflection

Perhaps most concerning is how sophisticated rhetorical deflection gains widespread social validation through digital platforms. Arguments employing these techniques often receive extensive social engagement—numerous endorsements, widespread distribution, and enthusiastic commentary—despite their logical weaknesses (Vosoughi et al., 2018). This phenomenon reveals troubling dynamics about how ideas circulate in contemporary discourse.

Social media platforms reward content that generates strong emotional responses and tribal identification rather than rigorous analysis (Brady et al., 2017). Sophisticated deflection often succeeds precisely because it provides audiences with intellectually satisfying ways to dismiss uncomfortable challenges to their existing beliefs. The very sophistication that makes these arguments problematic also makes them shareable—they appear scholarly while confirming biases (Klayman & Ha, 1987).

The amplification effect creates a feedback loop where deflection strategies are rewarded with social validation, encouraging their continued use. Audiences may interpret widespread engagement as evidence of an argument’s merit, when it may actually indicate the argument’s effectiveness at avoiding rather than addressing substantive challenges (Salganik et al., 2006). This dynamic particularly affects how public intellectuals understand their responsibilities and develop their argumentative practices.

Implications for Contemporary Intellectual Culture

These patterns raise broader questions about the role of public intellectuals in democratic discourse across ideological spectra. This analysis has focused particularly on progressive intellectual discourse—not because deflection is unique to the left, but because communities that explicitly champion critical thinking and empirical rigor present particularly stark contradictions when they employ deflection techniques. When figures who position themselves as opponents of dogmatic thinking use sophisticated rhetorical strategies to avoid accountability, it reveals tensions within progressive intellectual culture that merit examination.

Conservative and centrist voices certainly employ similar techniques: conservative intellectuals might use target substitution when challenged on empirical claims by shifting focus to liberal bias in academia; centrist voices might employ category collapse to avoid taking substantive positions by claiming all perspectives have merit. However, the stakes may be particularly high when deflection occurs within communities that explicitly claim methodological superiority and commitment to evidence-based reasoning (MacDonald, 1957).

The phenomenon recalls Clement Greenberg’s observations about the tendency of intellectual movements to become self-reinforcing cultural formations that prioritize group solidarity over genuine inquiry (Greenberg, 1939). When arguments succeed through social validation rather than empirical testing or logical rigor, intellectual discourse risks devolving into what John Dewey warned against: the substitution of group loyalty for genuine investigation (Dewey, 1910).

This dynamic is particularly problematic among left-wing intellectuals who explicitly position themselves as champions of evidence-based reasoning and opponents of dogmatic thinking. When such figures employ rhetorical strategies that prioritize winning over truth-seeking, while being rewarded with widespread social approval, it suggests that progressive intellectual culture may be developing its own forms of herd mentality that undermine the very values it claims to represent (Mills, 1959).

The stakes extend beyond individual arguments to questions about institutional credibility and public trust. If prominent intellectual voices gain influence through sophisticated deflection rather than rigorous engagement with challenges, it erodes the foundation for meaningful democratic discourse. Citizens lose access to the kind of genuine debate necessary for informed decision-making, receiving instead intellectually decorated but substantively hollow performances (Postman, 1985).

The implication for schools and other cultural institutions

Universities and academic journals could adjust their review processes to specifically reward scholars who engage directly with criticism rather than those who skillfully dodge it. Educational programs could teach students not just how to recognize good and bad arguments, but also how to spot when someone is using sophisticated-sounding language to avoid answering legitimate questions—helping students distinguish between rhetoric that clarifies issues versus rhetoric that muddies them (Aristotle, trans. 2007). Social media platforms and other digital spaces might modify their algorithms to promote content that engages substantively with complex topics rather than content that generates strong emotional reactions through deflection tactics.

The key insight is that current systems often inadvertently reward deflection because it can appear intellectually sophisticated and generate engagement, even when it doesn’t advance understanding. Recognizing this pattern could help institutions design better incentives for genuine intellectual accountability.

Further analysis is needed to understand how social media dynamics interact with academic incentive structures to reward rhetorical performance over intellectual honesty. Only by recognizing these patterns can we begin to preserve spaces for the kind of authentic inquiry that complex social problems require.

Methodological pathways for testing these hypotheses might include: content analysis of academic exchanges to identify deflection frequency across different contexts; experimental studies examining how audiences respond to deflection versus direct engagement; discourse analysis of social media debates to map the relationship between deflection techniques and viral amplification; and longitudinal studies tracking how deflection patterns evolve within specific intellectual communities over time.

References

Aikin, S. F., & Casey, J. P. (2011). Straw men, weak men, and hollow men. Argumentation, 25(1), 87-105.

Aristotle. (2007). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (G. A. Kennedy, Trans.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 4th century BCE)

Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim Crow. Polity Press.

Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2017). Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(28), 7313-7318.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Harvard University Press.

Burke, K. (1969). A rhetoric of motives. University of California Press.

Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. Harper Business.

Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. D.C. Heath & Company.

van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press.

Fogelin, R. J. (1985). The logic of deep disagreements. Informal Logic, 7(1), 1-8.

Frankfurt, H. G. (2005). On bullshit. Princeton University Press.

Greenberg, C. (1939). Avant-garde and kitsch. Partisan Review, 6(5), 34-49.

Habermas, J. (1981). The theory of communicative action. Beacon Press.

Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2(10), 732-735.

Klayman, J., & Ha, Y. W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94(2), 211-228.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.

MacDonald, D. (1957). Masscult and midcult. Partisan Review Press.

Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2017). The enigma of reason. Harvard University Press.

Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. Oxford University Press.

Nichols, T. (2017). The death of expertise: The campaign against established knowledge and why it matters. Oxford University Press.

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220.

Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. NYU Press.

O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown Publishers.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2019). Critical thinking: The nature of critical and creative thought. Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press.

Postman, N. (1985). Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show business. Penguin Books.

Said, E. W. (1994). Representations of the intellectual. Pantheon Books.

Salganik, M. J., Dodds, P. S., & Watts, D. J. (2006). Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science, 311(5762), 854-856.

Sinnott-Armstrong, W., & Fogelin, R. J. (2010). Understanding arguments: An introduction to informal logic. Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Steel, D. (2010). Epistemic values and the argument from inductive risk. Philosophy of Science, 77(1), 14-34.

Tetlock, P. E. (2005). Expert political judgment: How good is it? How can we know?. Princeton University Press.

Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.

Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. Yale University Press.

Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146-1151.

Walton, D. N. (1997). Appeal to expert opinion: Arguments from authority. Pennsylvania State University Press.

Walton, D. N. (1998). Ad hominem arguments. University of Alabama Press.