Tweet
We read (in my case re-read) part of JS Mill's On Liberty (specifically "Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion") in my writing seminar recently, and I've been thinking about it with respect to the creationism and global warming debates. Specifically, I've been thinking about his infallibility argument:
And
There currently is no real repression of speech on either of these issues; in fact, by all appearances a lively debate is occuring on each. What concerns me is that each side seems to want to use what powers they can to actually prevent the other side from speaking, and that when one side feels threatened it resorts even more to using authority rather than reason to dismiss the other.
Consider first the evolution debate. Evolution is in no question among real scientists. There is essentially universal consensus among biologists that in general the theory of evolution is true; almost all of the rest of biology depends on it. It would be absurd for "creation science" to be published in a reputable scientific journal. It's almost more absurd to teach it in schools.
But. By denying this belief the traditional avenues of scientific discourse, and more so by opposing it in the general education of youth, we are using authority rather than reason to combat it. The response on the part of the creationists has been to try (unsuccessfully) to gain those same weapons. That's why we see them trying to force creationism (excuse me, intelligent design) into schools.
The crux of this is that we rightfully believe that these ideas are absurd and have no future value. But (by Mill) that is an assumption of infallibility. I'm not sure he's wrong. Perhaps it would be best to give them greater leeway in the schools, because else we assume evolution's truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation.
The same process is visible in the global warming debate. From what I can tell, there are few/no publications against global warming*, and when there are they are immediately criticized as paid hacks of The Oil Conspiracy. I'm not qualified to make any judgement as to which side is right, but it seems there are significant elements of each side that make up their mind first, then look for evidence to justify it. And the global warming side in particular uses a lot of arguments to authority, when they say "this is the [overwhelming] consensus of scientists in the field, so shut up." We also hear complaints from each side that the government/scientific community is trying to muzzle them. Most of the time these are IMO absurd fearmongering, but I believe there are elements of each side that sincerely believe we would be better off if the other were silenced.
And again, maybe they're not wrong, but it's another assumption of infallibility. In the case of global warming infallibility is a terrible assumption, given the state of the art.
* either the fact or the cause - everyone here should understand what sides I'm referring to, even though my wording is imprecise
edit: I'm not confident enough to say I agree with either option, but I find it distinctly uncomfortable for two of my stronger beliefs to confict like this.
First: the opinion which it is attempted to suppress by authority may possibly be true. Those who desire to suppress it, of course deny its truth; but they are not infallible. They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging. T refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty.
And
There is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation.
There currently is no real repression of speech on either of these issues; in fact, by all appearances a lively debate is occuring on each. What concerns me is that each side seems to want to use what powers they can to actually prevent the other side from speaking, and that when one side feels threatened it resorts even more to using authority rather than reason to dismiss the other.
Consider first the evolution debate. Evolution is in no question among real scientists. There is essentially universal consensus among biologists that in general the theory of evolution is true; almost all of the rest of biology depends on it. It would be absurd for "creation science" to be published in a reputable scientific journal. It's almost more absurd to teach it in schools.
But. By denying this belief the traditional avenues of scientific discourse, and more so by opposing it in the general education of youth, we are using authority rather than reason to combat it. The response on the part of the creationists has been to try (unsuccessfully) to gain those same weapons. That's why we see them trying to force creationism (excuse me, intelligent design) into schools.
The crux of this is that we rightfully believe that these ideas are absurd and have no future value. But (by Mill) that is an assumption of infallibility. I'm not sure he's wrong. Perhaps it would be best to give them greater leeway in the schools, because else we assume evolution's truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation.
The same process is visible in the global warming debate. From what I can tell, there are few/no publications against global warming*, and when there are they are immediately criticized as paid hacks of The Oil Conspiracy. I'm not qualified to make any judgement as to which side is right, but it seems there are significant elements of each side that make up their mind first, then look for evidence to justify it. And the global warming side in particular uses a lot of arguments to authority, when they say "this is the [overwhelming] consensus of scientists in the field, so shut up." We also hear complaints from each side that the government/scientific community is trying to muzzle them. Most of the time these are IMO absurd fearmongering, but I believe there are elements of each side that sincerely believe we would be better off if the other were silenced.
And again, maybe they're not wrong, but it's another assumption of infallibility. In the case of global warming infallibility is a terrible assumption, given the state of the art.
* either the fact or the cause - everyone here should understand what sides I'm referring to, even though my wording is imprecise
edit: I'm not confident enough to say I agree with either option, but I find it distinctly uncomfortable for two of my stronger beliefs to confict like this.
Come on!
Comment