I thought this was nicely put:<\/p>\n
You must show that a man is wrong before you start
\nexplaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without
\ndiscussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this
\n(the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.<\/p>\nIn the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so
\ncommon that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it \u201cBulverism\u201d.
\nSome day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor,
\nEzekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he
\nheard his mother say to his father \u2014 who had been maintaining that two
\nsides of a triangle were together greater than a third \u2014 \u201cOh you say
\nthat because you are a man.\u201d \u201cAt that moment\u201d, E. Bulver assures us,
\n\u201cthere flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is
\nno necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and
\nexplain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove
\nthat he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or
\nright, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the
\nwall.\u201d That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth
\nCentury.<\/p>\n[\u2026]<\/p>\n
Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance
\nat the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of
\nmine is \u201cwishful thinking.\u201d You can never come to any conclusion by
\nexamining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is
\nto sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my
\nfigures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance
\nor not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring
\nabout my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If
\nyou find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain
\npsychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the
\ndoctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant \u2014 but only after you
\nhave yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely
\narithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems
\nof thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating
\nabout the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of
\nyourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of
\nthem do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go
\non and discover the psychological causes of the error.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n