Appeal to the LETTER
Latin ad orationem, oratio, “speech, discourse. » Ad litteram, lat. littera, “letter; writing.”
Both terms can refer to written or spoken speech.
1. In law and regulations
The law is interpreted to the letter when its interpretation is limited to the text’s literal meaning, see strict meaning.
This mode of interpretation is opposed to interpretations that appeal to the spirit of the law for example, by referring to the intention of the legislator.
2. In everyday argument
In everyday conversation, the term to the letter (ad litteram) refers to a second turn of speech based on what the other party has explicitly said (« verbally »), word for word, disregarding what the first speaker actually meant.
This occurs with indirect speech acts, such as requests, softened as questions:
S1: – Could you pass me the salt?
S2: – Yes.
However, S2 does not pass the salt shaker to S1. S2 answers the letter, without considering that S1 asked him to pass the salt (to do something), not to comment on his ability to do so.
In an argumentative situation, the term ad litteram refers to a response that strictly adheres to the opponent’s literal words, without attempting to understand or answer the opponent’s intended meaning:
The police pfficer: — Just tell me So-and-so did it, and I will let you go
The suspect: — « So-and-so did it »
By repeating the police’ words, the suspect says–exactly, but ironically–what the police wanted him to say in order to be released. He answered the letter, but he probably won’t be released.
The type of reply addresses the word and phrase litteral meaning rather than the speaker’s intended meaning, i.e. the spirit or intent of the police, given the conversational context.
The suspect fulfills his turn of speech, and gives the floor back to the accuser, who must rephrase what he wants to say.
Ad rem and ad litteram arguments. An argument on the merits (ad rem, to the matter) deals with the fundamentals of the case. Such arguments are based on a methodical and exclusive exercise of reason (ad judicium). An argument to the letter avoids the issue by dealing only with its formal expression.
This strategy can be used as a disorienting move, that serves a destructive purpose. It bypasses the significant content of the intervention by focusing on the fom of the speech. It can even turn the letter of the speech against the speaker’s intention.
This maneuver contrasts with a charitable consideration of the intent of the discourse and does not seek to take advantage of a poor formulation. In other words, it does not consider the conversational context.
3. A Complex Case
— SITUATION: A dispute about the legal and ethical management of science funding
1) Research in domain B is subject to legal provision S, which prohibits research that could lead to extremely dangerous results of type U.
2) A research group submits a research project in domain B to institution I. The research objectives are defined in the research proposal that accompanies the funding application. Funding is granted.
3) This research produces a result, X
— CLAIM: Result X is a type U result. R conducted U-type research, and I actually funded U-type research. Both knowingly violated the law.
ISSUE:
Does this research violate the statute prohibiting research likely to lead to U-Type results?
— ANSWER NO: Appeal to the letter (strict meaning) of the research project.
NO. U-type research emerged unexpectedly. The terms of reference did not include any research likely to produce U-Type results. Such unexpected occurrences are common in scientific research.
— ANSWER YES: Intentional interpretation, see motives and good reasons.
IT DOES. U-Type results did not “emerge”,they were intentionally produced.
(1) According to our panel of top scientists, a competent researcher could have foreseen that U-Type results would follow from the objectives defined in the specifications.
(2) The terms of reference don’t explicitly refer to U as a goal of the research in order to avoid the obvious legal and political consequences.
(3) However, the research proposal describes work that conforms to the generally accepted definition of U, and meets the criteria for U-Type research, according to distinguished members of the relevant scientific community.
Conclusion: They had a hidden agenda. They intentionaly conducted U-Type research, regardless of whether they used that term. [2]
[1] This example is derived from Glenn Kessler “The repeated claim that Fauci lied to Congress about ‘gain-of-function’ research.” The Washington Post, Oct. 29, 2021. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/29/repe’sated-claim-that-fauci-lied-congress-about-gain-of-function-research/
This case is linked to the ongoing controversy over the origin of the SARS-CoV-2.