4 ms·

I don't understand this line of reasoning, from either end of the spectrum. When those ideas have abhorrent real world consequences, that negatively affect real

by 7Z7 10y ago

I don't understand this line of reasoning, from either end of the spectrum. When those ideas have abhorrent real world consequences, that negatively affect real people's lives, why would we not criticize the people who hold them?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
inimino 10y ago
Understanding it is key to making a diverse democracy work.
xaa 10y ago
> When those ideas have abhorrent real world consequences...why would we not criticize the people who hold them? I'm an academic. Academics frequently come up with ideas that have, or would have if implemented, abhorrent real-world consequences. If you're a liberal, think hardcore, Heritage Institute supply-side economics. If you're a conservative, think Karl Marx. It is perfectly legitimate, and healthy, to criticize the ideas which you think are bad. However, the problem is that we as a society don't know a priori which ones really are and aren't bad. People have different opinions. The best way we've figured out to determine which are truly good and bad ideas is to have an open "marketplace of ideas" with free and open debate. If we criticize and marginalize people who have unpopular (= we think are bad) ideas, then the only ideas left will be the popular ones. And that, I believe, is anathema to progress, far more so than letting bad ideas be aired and eventually lose in the court of public opinion. Another outcome is that the unpopular idea might turn out to be better and win, but would not have have a chance to if it were prematurely stifled. The best way to go, therefore, IMO, is to criticize bad ideas but not the people who hold them. Humanity has tried before to stifle opposing viewpoints, and largely succeeded. It resulted in the Middle Ages. I prefer an open society.
- 7Z7 10y ago
  That's all well and good, in the dreamy theoretical lands of academia. But when ideas turn into actions, and the actions have been seen before and we know the consequences, can we not criticize those who now promote them?
  - xaa 10y ago
    Can we? Of course. Should we? I am not so sure. There are two possible kinds of ideas you could be talking about. One is ideas which have truly been tried before and have been actively and soundly rejected by the vast majority of the public. Let's call these "discredited" ideas and use as an example slavery, (some kinds of) eugenics, or flat-earthism. Then there are the ideas that you may feel have no good evidence behind them, but are still controversial in the public. Many economic ideas are in this category. For truly discredited ideas, I think the best response is to ignore these people, as they are usually not thinking clearly and it doesn't help anything to spend more time on the issue. For the ideas which are still controversial, the logic I stated above still holds. The ideas themselves should be vigorously attacked using evidence, but not the people. I think this principle goes far beyond academia. I just used it as an example of reductio ad absurdum: it seems obvious that we wouldn't want to penalize academics for doing their jobs, which is making up and testing new ideas that may be wrong. But the idea of tolerance for holders of diverse opinions -- and the reasoning for why it is important -- is a cornerstone of classical liberalism and played a key role in why the Founders set up the country in the way they did.

by 7Z7 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

inimino 10y ago

Understanding it is key to making a diverse democracy work.

xaa 10y ago

> When those ideas have abhorrent real world consequences...why would we not criticize the people who hold them? I'm an academic. Academics frequently come up with ideas that have, or would have if implemented, abhorrent real-world consequences. If you're a liberal, think hardcore, Heritage Institute supply-side economics. If you're a conservative, think Karl Marx. It is perfectly legitimate, and healthy, to criticize the ideas which you think are bad. However, the problem is that we as a society don't know a priori which ones really are and aren't bad. People have different opinions. The best way we've figured out to determine which are truly good and bad ideas is to have an open "marketplace of ideas" with free and open debate. If we criticize and marginalize people who have unpopular (= we think are bad) ideas, then the only ideas left will be the popular ones. And that, I believe, is anathema to progress, far more so than letting bad ideas be aired and eventually lose in the court of public opinion. Another outcome is that the unpopular idea might turn out to be better and win, but would not have have a chance to if it were prematurely stifled. The best way to go, therefore, IMO, is to criticize bad ideas but not the people who hold them. Humanity has tried before to stifle opposing viewpoints, and largely succeeded. It resulted in the Middle Ages. I prefer an open society.

7Z7 10y ago
That's all well and good, in the dreamy theoretical lands of academia. But when ideas turn into actions, and the actions have been seen before and we know the consequences, can we not criticize those who now promote them?
- xaa 10y ago
  Can we? Of course. Should we? I am not so sure. There are two possible kinds of ideas you could be talking about. One is ideas which have truly been tried before and have been actively and soundly rejected by the vast majority of the public. Let's call these "discredited" ideas and use as an example slavery, (some kinds of) eugenics, or flat-earthism. Then there are the ideas that you may feel have no good evidence behind them, but are still controversial in the public. Many economic ideas are in this category. For truly discredited ideas, I think the best response is to ignore these people, as they are usually not thinking clearly and it doesn't help anything to spend more time on the issue. For the ideas which are still controversial, the logic I stated above still holds. The ideas themselves should be vigorously attacked using evidence, but not the people. I think this principle goes far beyond academia. I just used it as an example of reductio ad absurdum: it seems obvious that we wouldn't want to penalize academics for doing their jobs, which is making up and testing new ideas that may be wrong. But the idea of tolerance for holders of diverse opinions -- and the reasoning for why it is important -- is a cornerstone of classical liberalism and played a key role in why the Founders set up the country in the way they did.