Bad Criticism
14th September 2026
Karl Popper invited us to be clear about the problem we are trying to solve. Testing a claim is not the same as evaluating the character of the person making it, and the latter cannot be asked to stand in for the former. Because it takes cognitive effort to parse data, weigh arguments, and assess logical coherence, we often default to name-calling, ad hominem, and guilt-by-association instead. This is a lazy and unscrupulous way to argue, and it drags down discourse, not least because its prevalence has made it unremarkable.
A news item in the Guardian on 31 August by the paper’s arts and culture correspondent amused me before it made me short-tempered. “British Museum,” the headline announced, “hosted Palantir founder Peter Thiel in private viewing of Bayeux tapestry.” The subhead: “Concern among staff that fragile artwork’s scarce ‘light hours’ given to someone with no known interest in museum” (emphasis mine, and a phrase that the great writer, Barbara Pym, would surely have enjoyed). Is there a global “Register of Interest in Museum”? Known to whom? Is the problem that Thiel’s degree of interest in the British Museum is uncertain or insufficient? Would the privileged visit have caused less concern had Thiel been a registered Museum donor?
Something isn’t bad just because Hitler liked it—else vegetarians would be compelled by their own principles to commit suicide.
September 14th, 2026 at 07:59
“No known interest in museum” probably means “no known donation to museum”.