Over here, “Notung” has an interesting article on the standards that bloggers might try to live up to if purporting to run something like a “freethought blog”. I think the same issues arise more widely with anything that has pretensions as a philosophy blog.
The post makes much of the principle of charity (read others on the basis that they are probably saying something that’s not absurd) and the further principle (which I, at least, strongly associate with Karl Popper) of addressing your opponents’ strongest arguments rather than sniping at their weaker arguments (perhaps in an effort to discredit people whose presence and activities seem inconvenient).
As philosophers, we should adopt these principles – or so I think. It seems helpful to use these principles to make intellectual progress and to keep ourselves honest. I do, in fact, try to follow them in my own philosophical work. But … as bloggers we are sometimes more concerned to be political activists than to be dispassionate philosophers keen to make intellectual progress for its own sake. I’m not sure that I want to follow these rules meticulously if objecting to the latest pronouncement by the Pope. Even here, though, I am sometimes dismayed by what look like blatantly illogical and even dishonest arguments from peers and colleagues.
In any event, what standards should we apply to ourselves as bloggers – especially if we also hold ourselves out as philosophers? Discuss.