What does the continued distractionary tactic by those in power in government and the media, (especially in the UK relating to trans issues) of wringing hands over gender and sex have to do with a site ostensibly about hacker news, especially on a site where it seems wholly heterodox to suggest any sort of alternative societal structure might be needed to combat climate change, as that is quickly denoted as off topic, and something that market forces will eventually solve. I honestly could care less for the hand-wringing of academia in a field completely non-relevant to "hackers", and this simply feels like the sort of thing used to distract from broader issues at hand, and a way of us v them-ing society in order to manufacture consent for an impending climate catastrophe where those with massive pecuniary hoards will further divide society on identarian (sex/gender/race/location) lines in order to distract from the broader issues at hand.
I came late to realize the existence of this problem, and discovered it when someone on Twitter blocked me simply for asking about Jordan Peterson. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I fail to see how sanctioning/blocking/banning/censuring/deplatforming is compatible with open honest debate (these are all basically the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum fallacy, "punishment-as-argument"), in any event, and since I strongly believe in the latter, I fall on the "strong free speech" side. (My Twitter account has all of 9 blocked accounts, and those are mostly things like low-signal-to-noise-ratio businesses with lots of promoted tweets)
There are people who believe that ideas exist that are both bad and that cannot be defeated rationally, but I think they are wrong. Take racism, for example (I've argued against racists): They will come at you with supporting (correlational) data, so you come at them with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_and_intelligence and then you ask them whether they're shorter than average and still want to act on these correlations they put so much stock in, because in that case they need to now act against their own interests (favor preferential hiring of tall people, etc.), and you just wait and let that sink in because most of them will go quiet. ;)
Amen: the best way to defeat any bad argument is to subject it to public, open, and fair scrutiny. If anything is true, it will stand. If it is false, there is no greater boon to an intellectual community than having publicly dissected and exposed for what it is.
There really is a difference between being able to logically refute an idea and for that refutation to hold any sway; if anything, there's a lot of evidence against what you're saying. Consider the widespread climate change skepticism movements, flat earth movements, anti-vaccination movements, the rise of far-right and neo-Nazism, and recent political happenings (e.g. the Brexit campaign tactic claiming that money given to the EU would be able to fund the health service in the UK).
Can their arguments be countered and argued against? Of course, most people would say so. But does that mean that they'll be defeated in the court of public opinion? Consider that society does not function as and is not based upon systems of rational deliberation. The intellectuals may not be convinced by bad ideas and arguments, but the public is, and the importance of the public here is shown in the fact that all the movements I've named also take advantage of rhetoric, not merely logical argumentation.
So the real question is: if open and fair scrutiny is a way to defeat a bad argument, what's the way to defeat the rhetoric used to prop up that bad argument? It's clear that one can have rhetoric with a bad argument too, isn't it?
> Consider that society does not function as and is not based upon systems of rational deliberation
The court system? The medical industry? Science? Technology? The financial system?
> if open and fair scrutiny is a way to defeat a bad argument, what's the way to defeat the rhetoric used to prop up that bad argument?
Well, that's a good question. Charisma and persuasiveness can be used by both good and not-so-good (if well-intending) actors. I think intellectuals might spot and discount the appeals to emotion, but non-intellectuals and those of weak critical thinking skill would not, and the latter do make up the majority of the population.
The thing is, public sentiment eventually does seem to drift closer to the truths the rationalists determined already; see for example marijuana acceptance, gayness acceptance, and (hopefully, maybe) human-caused climate change. Is it because of a slowly-encroaching realization that the rationalists were right? Or is it all down to the lucky benevolence of the "persuaders"? And if most people aren't swayed by logical reasoning, then how does ANY progress actually get made (where "progress" is measured as "closer to rational truths and goods"), except as an accidental beneficence of Those Who Persuade Us?
>Charisma and persuasiveness can be used by both good and not-so-good (if well-intending) actors.
But it's not only about being able to deliver the right charisma; certain ideas are more attractive than others, and I think that many bad ideas are attractive because they appeal to biases that we already have, along with ideological factors. Most people, for instance, do not believe their belief in democratic systems or prevailing rationality to be deeply ideological.
There are two sides to using historical arguments here: firstly, they can obviously help make a case, but secondly there are reasons to believe that in today's society critical thinking skills are dulled through a variety of unintentional processes. I think the mistake in your post is assuming that gay acceptance, marijuana acceptance and human-caused climate change acceptance have come about from the triumph of reason over ignorance, but I'd say that a more plausible explanation is that they operate within the same framework which convinced people that gays shouldn't be accepted and that marijuana is the devil's lettuce.
Next, it is possible that misinformation reaches such a height that the mere "drift closer to truths" is not sufficient[0]; consider the rise to power of the Nazi party, which was so fast even in its day.
Finally, the establishment of truth in a democracy on a wide scale requires that people are able to use their own intellects to judge arguments sufficiently well enough to do so, but I think that's an assumption we take for granted:
"Now in recalling John Stuart Mill's passage, I drew attention to the premise hidden in this assumption: free and equal discussion can fulfill the function attributed to it only if it is rational expression and development of independent thinking, free from indoctrination, manipulation, extraneous authority. The notion of pluralism and countervailing powers is no substitute for this requirement. One might in theory construct a state in which a multitude of different pressures, interests, and authorities balance each other out and result in a truly general and rational interest. However, such a construction badly fits a society in which powers are and remain unequal and even increase their unequal weight when they run their own course."
[0] "The evaluation is ex post, and his list includes opposites (Savonarola too would have burned Fra Dolcino). Even the ex post evaluation is contestable as to its truth: history corrects the judgment--too late. The correction does not help the victims and does not absolve their executioners. However, the lesson is clear: intolerance has delayed progress and has prolonged the slaughter and torture of innocents for hundreds of years. Does this clinch the case for indiscriminate, 'pure' tolerance? Are there historical conditions in which such toleration impedes liberation and multiplies the victims who are sacrificed to the status quo?" (H. Marcuse, Repressive Tolerance (1965))
You raise a really, really good point, and I agree with you: just because a flawed argument has been demonstrated as such doesn't mean it won't sway people's minds. I don't have the answer to such a dilemma. I would love to hear some ideas on the point.
The paper talks a lot about what should and should not be allowed in an academic environment, and I think I agree with the bulk of it. Freedom of speech must be protected in such circles. But what you're talking about with public opinion—that is a hard problem that needs solving.
Part of allowing the discussion is to identify who is an allied, who is a enemy and who is neutral, and then focus the refuting accordingly.
Take climate change. Is those who think we are currently in a run-away scenario friend or foe? It is very easy for people to define them as foe because their views and suggestions are different, and from there put them in the climate change skeptic side even if they share nothing in common with that sides view.
Without open and fair scrutiny you get the political situation of "you're either with us, or against us", and from a historical perspective that tend to do more harm than good regardless of what the movement stand for.
That's probably true in isolation, but I have doubts about whether it scales.
It's generally easier and less time consuming to produce a bad argument than it is to produce a good argument to refute the bad argument. For the targets of the arguments, it often is harder and more time consuming to follow the good argument, too.
Get too many independent sources of bad arguments in your society, and there simply won't be time and resources to counter them.
You raise a good point. Sure, it can't match the scale. However, I think that if you can sway the intelligent and conscientious, you've won most of the battle. You don't need to (and really can't) counter every bad or false argument or idea. Maybe I'm too optimistic, though.
Trying to scale effective debate is a hard problem. I've run across a few entities that are trying to make civil, open discourse more commonplace. Unfortunately I forget the name… Anyone got examples?
> Get too many independent sources of bad arguments in your society, and there simply won't be time and resources to counter them.
You can find time and resources to counter the most damaging bad arguments, though. Many bad arguments just do things like sell pills or supplements that don't actually do anything measurable that beats placebo; not really harmful per se, even if based on bullshit. See: "Dr." Oz.
Yes. Interests that need to rely on bad arguments to push their agenda will spend a lot of effort polishing their propaganda and arguments to work with general ignorance, psychological biases, group think, and subtle fallacies.
Most of the doubt can be alleviated if it were enforced that such dialogue must be conducted in good faith by open minds.
Bad arguments are so prevalent because their staunchest peddlers aren't arguing from ignorance alone, but arguing from deep-seated convictions or selfish interests. That is, they violate the criteria of good faith and open mind.
cue the downvotes,
but,
if your 'progressive' ideology requires constant 'progress', eventually you will need to invent new 'progress' to keep 'progressing' when you run out of things to 'progress' towards, and it's easier to call others hateful than question this core philosophical tenet as part of ones own 'philosophical identity'..
are some trans skeptics transphobic: unequivocally yes
are some trans skeptics not transphobic: unequivocally yes
but all the easier to tar-and-feather them both as one 'hateful' unit in order to suppress discussion..
(again, cue the downvotes - but realize by doing so you are simply proving me right)
by disagreeing with the philosophial argument that gender is different from bilological sex without actually being afraid (phobia) of being wrong, nor being 'hateful' to those who claim it (e.g. treat them like people)
The left loves to redefine words like phobias to weaponize them. They then say anyone who is not welcoming with open arms is x-phobic and lives in fear and hatred of said group and by extension wishes to attack them.
It is very possible to disagree with something like homosexuality and simply go about your life. It doesn’t mean you throw stones or spit at them, you just disagree with them.
Trans is a little different because the desired outcome is you change your behavior NOT to treat them like everyone else but to treat them according to target identity. So if you choose not to go out of your way to treat them differently, you are phobic.
In the past, this wasn’t an issue. You could not believe in mixing races and that simply meant you didn’t date outside your race. You still addressed a black/Hispanic/etc man as sir, woman as m’am, etc. a flat out racist would call the men “boy”, refuse to serve them, whatever. Of course there are people today who will call you a racist for not sleeping with someone outside your race. They redefine racist as any change in behavior based on race instead of the intended idea where your actions deny the person those things they would otherwise have a right to.
You could make the rational (but... somewhat outrage-triggering) argument that it's cognitively-dissonant to both believe that teens cannot consent to sex with an adult but they CAN consent to a far more permanent and invasive gender change performed by adults (I just googled; hormone-blocking treatment usually begins at puberty onset)
And you could (probably) rationally argue against that argument
Or you could just deplatform anyone making the original argument against it and accomplish nothing
Not quite. There's recent studies on both genders finding lasting effects of pre-pubescent hormone blockers on brain development, memory, and IQ. Brain plasticity drops significantly with age, so any recovery in that department if and when a decision to reverse is made is diminished.
I had a comment here but the other response covered it better... basically, the reversibility of hormone-blocking on a rapidly-changing, rapidly-growing brain and body responding to said hormones are not nearly as possible as you think.
I'm not saying it might not result in some interesting people that might have interesting perspectives on things that might contribute to society positively; just saying that a "complete undo" is strictly incorrect
I notice you don't mention any other medication used in children. You only speak about meds used by trans children.
Your concern about medication side effects would appear more genuine if you also mentioned the range of medication used by all children where we don't know the mechanism of action nor the long term side effects.
This dishonesty, BTW, is why people don't bother discussing it with you.
Just because I didn't also mention the range of medication used by all children does not mean I would not promote exercising (extreme) caution there, too! In fact I believe administering ADD drugs to anyone below 18 should only be resorted to in the most extreme circumstances.
Not mentioning it doesn't mean I don't believe it as well and doesn't mean I'm being dishonest. It just means I omitted it. My worldview is as internally-consistent as I can make it!!
> Ok, so what does it look like when someone's argument is defeated rationally?
I was going to say "court trials", but it turns out that lawyers use fallacies and persuasive tactics all the time, so I cannot. :/ Maybe most of the time, in a trial?
> Who is the referee of when the defeat occurs?
The judge. :) (I know what you're angling at, though... who watches the watchers, how can anyone judge what is objective truth, etc.)
> What happens to that person if they don't agree with the referee, and persist in their irrational argument?
You can keep trying to show them why it is irrational. I've been able to show some people why part of their reasoning is circular, for example.
> What should you do if they don't go quiet?
Let them rot away in their collectively dim zero-sum-game worldview?
> What should you do if they never go quiet, no matter what you say?
"Never"? How do you know they will "never" go quiet? The anti-suffragists have largely gone quiet... The anti-mixed-race-marriage folks have largely gone quiet... Are you also present 1000 years in the future and somehow know these eventualities or lack thereof?
(It's almost like you're making an Appeal to Zeno's Paradox, here.)
> EDIT - it is incredibly apt that this comment is getting downvoted :-)
Those people are dumb and devoid of faith in their own arguments, because you don't seem to be violating the offtopic rule and your comment is pointed albeit reasonable. In the spirit of the very principle the original post was about, have an upvote.
The problem is people like Jordan Peterson are very careful who they choose to argue with, when paired against a skillful interlocutor, such as Matt Dillahunty, Jordan's arguments can be shown for the bullshit that they are.
The appeal that his particular block seems to be entranced by is his unique ability to engage in cheap rhetorical tricks. Those who are skilled in debate can recognize these logical fallacies but a weaker interviewer will fall to pieces. As Jordan seems to be more interested in engaging in interviews with weaker orators these debates usually fail quit spectacularly. Much like watching a train wreck you can not seem to avert your gaze. His acolytes seem to derive a great sense to schadenfreude from this.
When faced with a skilled rhetorician such as Jordan Peterson the more simple solution is to disengage from his oratorical slight of hand and ignore him for the jackass he is. You may consider this punishment, others consider it withdrawing from an uphill battle from a renowned quack that performed philosophical debate in the same manner and school of thought as the Gish Gallop.
Arguing with Jordan Peterson is tantamount to arguing with a flat earther. Rather than give platforms to these charletens it is best to ignore them.
to point out the parent literally emulated the description of prejudiced un thinking responses to 'wrongthink' that they were apprently trying to rebut?
Of course, I get it, you don't seem to understand what an argument is! Silly me, You see when constructing a rebuttal to a point from your opposition the correct tactic is to retort with a dissenting position and back up your statement with counterpoints. You also seem to be under the impression that just because a statement is made that you favor, that means that statement is valid.
My point is when someone states that the earth is flat, you don't bother engaging in an argument on why they are wrong, there is mounds of evidence to the contrary if someone takes such a fallacious position. Your rebuttal to my point is: Nah-uh, he stated the world is flat therefore the world is flat.
Yes, I know that the parent states we shouldn't block people from going to venues and stating the world is flat or blocking them from going on TV and saying the world is flat, or going on social media and saying the world is flat, or even going to our institutions of education and saying the world is flat. What you fail to understand is while you are allowed to believe that the world is flat and state that the world is flat, that does not mean that you are entitled to the pulpit upon which you pronounce your bullshit from. There is nothing in the first amendment that entitles people to a venue to defend ignorance or hatred.
For example, replace the argument from my previous statement, "the world is flat," with the statement, "the KKK is right to suggest that races other than European whites are inferior." Are you entitled to your opinion even in the face of evidence to the contrary? Yes. Are you entitled to go to a college campus and spread your message of hate. No. You are not.
Again, you are free to your opinion and the speech you use to make those statements. You are not entitled to a pulpit to spread your message, if a venue does not agree with your opinion then it is their prerogative to decline your presence. It is not punishment, it is a statement of dissent to the opinion of the speaker. One that they are entitled to. That too is free speech.
Philosophers search for truth and objectivity. A person’s identity (according to today’s school of thought) is not objective, it’s completely subject to their needs.
And since you, the academic, don’t fully know their needs, you cannot understand their identity, and thus you cannot come to some objective truth about it.
I think this is why philosophers are being called x-phobic; they’re using their power as academics to enforce some kind of truth.
I'm not so sure I agree. I don't see anything particularly special about why people believe Alex Jones or polarize to creationism, racism, nationalism, etc. These are all well within the ability of science in all it's forms (biology, history, psychology, sociology) to explain. Their needs are well-quantified and analyzed in any number of papers that have been published. There's nothing new there, except the internet reinforcing existing behaviors in a novel way that wasn't possible before. But the underlying pathologies? They've always been there.
Weren't philosophers a decade a go lamenting of how reductionist science has become? Like I remember going to college and the professors held a forum where they insisted that science isn't the end-all be-all for human existence. Weird how I disagreed with their analogies but I find myself agreeing with their point that human experience is not meant to be reduced to what is already known.
And they (as much as one can generalize across an entire discipline) still do (rightfully so) lament about science and how it pretends to be the answer to everything. But that doesn't mean we're supposed to throw out everything we do know about humans through science, such as how they establish their beliefs or how they manage to persist or how these beliefs get tied up in identity, and what we continuously find out by applying scientific methods (such as how presenting facts can lead to reinforcing contradictory pre-existing beliefs).
Sure, but when you start arguing that "pronouns" are defined by genetics when we had pronouns before the discovery of genetics, I think you should be respected about as much as Deepak Chopra.
We had pronouns that matched[1] with expressed genetics, which everyone could see. Why would it matter that people did not know what the underlying mechanism was for what they were observing? Even if they had known, they wouldn't have used a DNA test as the basis for choosing their pronoun.
[1] With the exception of hermaphrodites and such.
Unlike many HN commenters, I generally fall in favor of the current trend in social media censorship and stratification. I don't think there's a problem with individuals choosing to engulf themselves in a "bubble" of reinforcing opinions. I certainly see no reason why any individual should be forced into internet debates about their opinions if they are not personally a fan of internet debates.
That said, academic institutions are not Facebook or Twitter, and academics rightfully should hold the power to ask questions and make statements that make others feel uncomfortable. There is no doubt that there should be room at universities for people who want to muse on the nature of gender, even in a way that may challenge others' strongly held beliefs.
However, it is immediate and utmost importance to recognize that questions of gender identity are not just abstract questions. There are members of universities and of society at large struggling to gain acceptance as queer and transsexual, and whether or not academics want to deliberate on what it even means to be of a gender, universities and the people involved with universities seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of protecting the current progressive status quo of gender identity.
I think there needs to be an important distinction made. Academic inquiry into the nature of gender is fine. But oppressing those already struggling to gain acceptance in society is not okay.
To that end, I'm not sure I understand the bullets listed at the bottom of the post:
>We affirm the right of transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals to live free of harassment and abuse, and we welcome them enthusiastically as fellow participants in the profession of philosophy.
>We reject calls for censuring or deplatforming any of our colleagues on the basis of their philosophical arguments about sex and gender identity, or their social and political advocacy for sex-based rights.
Is this not a contradiction? If we are looking to protect philosophers' "social and political advocacy for sex-based rights", it seems implied that this includes advocacy in opposition to the previously stated "right of transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals to live free of harassment and abuse".
Even within academic discourse, there is an Overton window. The window may be wider for academics but it still exists. I don't know who gets to decide the Overton window for academics, but there are topics which are certainly out. We can all agree that sympathizing with genocide or advocating racism, things of that nature, are outside the Overton window for academics. If a philosopher muses "maybe killing all Jews is okay", he or she would be removed from the institution, and rightfully so.
The question here is where the Overton window's edge lies in the realm of gender identity. My opinion is that the window ends where people's rights begin. If you want to ask "does gender even exist? Is gender identity a meaningful form of expression?", fine. If you want to say "gender doesn't exist, so don't protect transgender folk from discrimination in legislation", you have gone too far.
Who defines the Overton window in reality? There is no "Board of Acceptable Philosophy". The process we have now of internet rage mobs and "deplatforming" is arguably the most democratic way society has ever had of enforcing an Overton window, but that's not a good thing in the context of academia, which should rightfully be separate from society at large. I think in the old days, the outdated ideas would simply die off with the thinkers who hold them, reflecting the changes in the world in slow motion.
By the amount of attention this issue gets, one might actually think it were a real problem and not something that a specific segment of the population really wants to focus on. Even the open letter itself only mentions "conversations" and "proposals." No professor at a major university seems to have actually be sanctioned or punished for what they say on this issue, despite all the conversation around it.
We can compare that to the 10 trans people murdered (according to Wiki) just this year alone. And that's just the ones Wiki editors decided merited inclusion. There are probably more, some unknown, and countless other trans individuals who face violence and harassment on a near daily basis.
Meanwhile, the hollowness of these arguments and the crocodile tears of the people who focus on them is laid bare when considers the amount of anti-BDS legislation that have been passed, with many universities requiring speakers to sign statements saying they will not and have never engaged in BDS.
These people, these "philosophers", simply want to be allowed to be transphobic in public without consequences. But that's the real heart of freedom and free speech. You can say what you what, it's true, but you're not free from people talking back or deciding they don't want to hear from you.
You are saying that philosophers should not be so concerned about philosophy because there are bigger problems in society. But they are philosophers. Of course they are concerned about philosophy. Beetle scientists are concerned with beetle academia.
Why the scare quotes around "philosophers"? They are university academics in the field of philosophy.
The question of "what is a woman" seems to be obviously the sort of question that a philosopher should be engaging with. If you don't want to hear their thoughts on that don't read their journals, but to declare the question out of bounds seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of what philosophy is.
Other statements that are obviously philosophical include:
"Sex and gender are two different things"
"Gender is a spectrum"
"Sex is a spectrum"
"A person can change their sex"
And I am not persuaded by the argument that people's free speech is not violated if their career is merely ruined, but they are not put in prison. You can be sure that the blacklisting of Colin Kaepernick sent a clear message to every black NFL player that they were not free to share their support for BLM. :-(
56 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 117 ms ] threadI fail to see how sanctioning/blocking/banning/censuring/deplatforming is compatible with open honest debate (these are all basically the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum fallacy, "punishment-as-argument"), in any event, and since I strongly believe in the latter, I fall on the "strong free speech" side. (My Twitter account has all of 9 blocked accounts, and those are mostly things like low-signal-to-noise-ratio businesses with lots of promoted tweets)
There are people who believe that ideas exist that are both bad and that cannot be defeated rationally, but I think they are wrong. Take racism, for example (I've argued against racists): They will come at you with supporting (correlational) data, so you come at them with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_and_intelligence and then you ask them whether they're shorter than average and still want to act on these correlations they put so much stock in, because in that case they need to now act against their own interests (favor preferential hiring of tall people, etc.), and you just wait and let that sink in because most of them will go quiet. ;)
Can their arguments be countered and argued against? Of course, most people would say so. But does that mean that they'll be defeated in the court of public opinion? Consider that society does not function as and is not based upon systems of rational deliberation. The intellectuals may not be convinced by bad ideas and arguments, but the public is, and the importance of the public here is shown in the fact that all the movements I've named also take advantage of rhetoric, not merely logical argumentation.
So the real question is: if open and fair scrutiny is a way to defeat a bad argument, what's the way to defeat the rhetoric used to prop up that bad argument? It's clear that one can have rhetoric with a bad argument too, isn't it?
The court system? The medical industry? Science? Technology? The financial system?
> if open and fair scrutiny is a way to defeat a bad argument, what's the way to defeat the rhetoric used to prop up that bad argument?
Well, that's a good question. Charisma and persuasiveness can be used by both good and not-so-good (if well-intending) actors. I think intellectuals might spot and discount the appeals to emotion, but non-intellectuals and those of weak critical thinking skill would not, and the latter do make up the majority of the population.
The thing is, public sentiment eventually does seem to drift closer to the truths the rationalists determined already; see for example marijuana acceptance, gayness acceptance, and (hopefully, maybe) human-caused climate change. Is it because of a slowly-encroaching realization that the rationalists were right? Or is it all down to the lucky benevolence of the "persuaders"? And if most people aren't swayed by logical reasoning, then how does ANY progress actually get made (where "progress" is measured as "closer to rational truths and goods"), except as an accidental beneficence of Those Who Persuade Us?
But it's not only about being able to deliver the right charisma; certain ideas are more attractive than others, and I think that many bad ideas are attractive because they appeal to biases that we already have, along with ideological factors. Most people, for instance, do not believe their belief in democratic systems or prevailing rationality to be deeply ideological.
There are two sides to using historical arguments here: firstly, they can obviously help make a case, but secondly there are reasons to believe that in today's society critical thinking skills are dulled through a variety of unintentional processes. I think the mistake in your post is assuming that gay acceptance, marijuana acceptance and human-caused climate change acceptance have come about from the triumph of reason over ignorance, but I'd say that a more plausible explanation is that they operate within the same framework which convinced people that gays shouldn't be accepted and that marijuana is the devil's lettuce.
Next, it is possible that misinformation reaches such a height that the mere "drift closer to truths" is not sufficient[0]; consider the rise to power of the Nazi party, which was so fast even in its day.
Finally, the establishment of truth in a democracy on a wide scale requires that people are able to use their own intellects to judge arguments sufficiently well enough to do so, but I think that's an assumption we take for granted:
"Now in recalling John Stuart Mill's passage, I drew attention to the premise hidden in this assumption: free and equal discussion can fulfill the function attributed to it only if it is rational expression and development of independent thinking, free from indoctrination, manipulation, extraneous authority. The notion of pluralism and countervailing powers is no substitute for this requirement. One might in theory construct a state in which a multitude of different pressures, interests, and authorities balance each other out and result in a truly general and rational interest. However, such a construction badly fits a society in which powers are and remain unequal and even increase their unequal weight when they run their own course."
[0] "The evaluation is ex post, and his list includes opposites (Savonarola too would have burned Fra Dolcino). Even the ex post evaluation is contestable as to its truth: history corrects the judgment--too late. The correction does not help the victims and does not absolve their executioners. However, the lesson is clear: intolerance has delayed progress and has prolonged the slaughter and torture of innocents for hundreds of years. Does this clinch the case for indiscriminate, 'pure' tolerance? Are there historical conditions in which such toleration impedes liberation and multiplies the victims who are sacrificed to the status quo?" (H. Marcuse, Repressive Tolerance (1965))
The paper talks a lot about what should and should not be allowed in an academic environment, and I think I agree with the bulk of it. Freedom of speech must be protected in such circles. But what you're talking about with public opinion—that is a hard problem that needs solving.
An educated populous able to apply critical thinking.
The ability to have the discourse should not be predicated upon the likelihood of winning the argument.
A thousand times, yes. I see this as the ultimate solution. Do you think there's anything that we can do now to improve the situation on education?
Take climate change. Is those who think we are currently in a run-away scenario friend or foe? It is very easy for people to define them as foe because their views and suggestions are different, and from there put them in the climate change skeptic side even if they share nothing in common with that sides view.
Without open and fair scrutiny you get the political situation of "you're either with us, or against us", and from a historical perspective that tend to do more harm than good regardless of what the movement stand for.
(one of my hot-takes is that Gore inadvertently precipitated this.)
It's generally easier and less time consuming to produce a bad argument than it is to produce a good argument to refute the bad argument. For the targets of the arguments, it often is harder and more time consuming to follow the good argument, too.
Get too many independent sources of bad arguments in your society, and there simply won't be time and resources to counter them.
Trying to scale effective debate is a hard problem. I've run across a few entities that are trying to make civil, open discourse more commonplace. Unfortunately I forget the name… Anyone got examples?
Yep, that's the main reason the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop works.
> Get too many independent sources of bad arguments in your society, and there simply won't be time and resources to counter them.
You can find time and resources to counter the most damaging bad arguments, though. Many bad arguments just do things like sell pills or supplements that don't actually do anything measurable that beats placebo; not really harmful per se, even if based on bullshit. See: "Dr." Oz.
im sorry but to me this seems counterintuitive. occams razor and all. do you have any supporting info for this? genuinely curious
Bad arguments are so prevalent because their staunchest peddlers aren't arguing from ignorance alone, but arguing from deep-seated convictions or selfish interests. That is, they violate the criteria of good faith and open mind.
are some trans skeptics transphobic: unequivocally yes
are some trans skeptics not transphobic: unequivocally yes
but all the easier to tar-and-feather them both as one 'hateful' unit in order to suppress discussion..
(again, cue the downvotes - but realize by doing so you are simply proving me right)
How?
The left loves to redefine words like phobias to weaponize them. They then say anyone who is not welcoming with open arms is x-phobic and lives in fear and hatred of said group and by extension wishes to attack them.
It is very possible to disagree with something like homosexuality and simply go about your life. It doesn’t mean you throw stones or spit at them, you just disagree with them.
Trans is a little different because the desired outcome is you change your behavior NOT to treat them like everyone else but to treat them according to target identity. So if you choose not to go out of your way to treat them differently, you are phobic.
In the past, this wasn’t an issue. You could not believe in mixing races and that simply meant you didn’t date outside your race. You still addressed a black/Hispanic/etc man as sir, woman as m’am, etc. a flat out racist would call the men “boy”, refuse to serve them, whatever. Of course there are people today who will call you a racist for not sleeping with someone outside your race. They redefine racist as any change in behavior based on race instead of the intended idea where your actions deny the person those things they would otherwise have a right to.
And you could (probably) rationally argue against that argument
Or you could just deplatform anyone making the original argument against it and accomplish nothing
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5694455/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetail...
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.0004...
By sticking close to the available evidence and using careful reasoning.
I'm not saying it might not result in some interesting people that might have interesting perspectives on things that might contribute to society positively; just saying that a "complete undo" is strictly incorrect
Your concern about medication side effects would appear more genuine if you also mentioned the range of medication used by all children where we don't know the mechanism of action nor the long term side effects.
This dishonesty, BTW, is why people don't bother discussing it with you.
Not mentioning it doesn't mean I don't believe it as well and doesn't mean I'm being dishonest. It just means I omitted it. My worldview is as internally-consistent as I can make it!!
Ok, so what does it look like when someone's argument is defeated rationally?
Who is the referee of when the defeat occurs?
What happens to that person if they don't agree with the referee, and persist in their irrational argument?
> you just wait and let that sink in because most of them will go quiet.
What should you do if they don't go quiet?
What should you do if they never go quiet, no matter what you say?
EDIT - it is incredibly apt that this comment is getting downvoted :-)
I was going to say "court trials", but it turns out that lawyers use fallacies and persuasive tactics all the time, so I cannot. :/ Maybe most of the time, in a trial?
> Who is the referee of when the defeat occurs?
The judge. :) (I know what you're angling at, though... who watches the watchers, how can anyone judge what is objective truth, etc.)
> What happens to that person if they don't agree with the referee, and persist in their irrational argument?
You can keep trying to show them why it is irrational. I've been able to show some people why part of their reasoning is circular, for example.
> What should you do if they don't go quiet?
Let them rot away in their collectively dim zero-sum-game worldview?
> What should you do if they never go quiet, no matter what you say?
"Never"? How do you know they will "never" go quiet? The anti-suffragists have largely gone quiet... The anti-mixed-race-marriage folks have largely gone quiet... Are you also present 1000 years in the future and somehow know these eventualities or lack thereof?
(It's almost like you're making an Appeal to Zeno's Paradox, here.)
> EDIT - it is incredibly apt that this comment is getting downvoted :-)
Those people are dumb and devoid of faith in their own arguments, because you don't seem to be violating the offtopic rule and your comment is pointed albeit reasonable. In the spirit of the very principle the original post was about, have an upvote.
eg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmH7JUeVQb8
The appeal that his particular block seems to be entranced by is his unique ability to engage in cheap rhetorical tricks. Those who are skilled in debate can recognize these logical fallacies but a weaker interviewer will fall to pieces. As Jordan seems to be more interested in engaging in interviews with weaker orators these debates usually fail quit spectacularly. Much like watching a train wreck you can not seem to avert your gaze. His acolytes seem to derive a great sense to schadenfreude from this.
When faced with a skilled rhetorician such as Jordan Peterson the more simple solution is to disengage from his oratorical slight of hand and ignore him for the jackass he is. You may consider this punishment, others consider it withdrawing from an uphill battle from a renowned quack that performed philosophical debate in the same manner and school of thought as the Gish Gallop.
Arguing with Jordan Peterson is tantamount to arguing with a flat earther. Rather than give platforms to these charletens it is best to ignore them.
not even a jp fan here...
My point is when someone states that the earth is flat, you don't bother engaging in an argument on why they are wrong, there is mounds of evidence to the contrary if someone takes such a fallacious position. Your rebuttal to my point is: Nah-uh, he stated the world is flat therefore the world is flat.
Yes, I know that the parent states we shouldn't block people from going to venues and stating the world is flat or blocking them from going on TV and saying the world is flat, or going on social media and saying the world is flat, or even going to our institutions of education and saying the world is flat. What you fail to understand is while you are allowed to believe that the world is flat and state that the world is flat, that does not mean that you are entitled to the pulpit upon which you pronounce your bullshit from. There is nothing in the first amendment that entitles people to a venue to defend ignorance or hatred.
For example, replace the argument from my previous statement, "the world is flat," with the statement, "the KKK is right to suggest that races other than European whites are inferior." Are you entitled to your opinion even in the face of evidence to the contrary? Yes. Are you entitled to go to a college campus and spread your message of hate. No. You are not.
Again, you are free to your opinion and the speech you use to make those statements. You are not entitled to a pulpit to spread your message, if a venue does not agree with your opinion then it is their prerogative to decline your presence. It is not punishment, it is a statement of dissent to the opinion of the speaker. One that they are entitled to. That too is free speech.
And since you, the academic, don’t fully know their needs, you cannot understand their identity, and thus you cannot come to some objective truth about it.
I think this is why philosophers are being called x-phobic; they’re using their power as academics to enforce some kind of truth.
[1] With the exception of hermaphrodites and such.
That said, academic institutions are not Facebook or Twitter, and academics rightfully should hold the power to ask questions and make statements that make others feel uncomfortable. There is no doubt that there should be room at universities for people who want to muse on the nature of gender, even in a way that may challenge others' strongly held beliefs.
However, it is immediate and utmost importance to recognize that questions of gender identity are not just abstract questions. There are members of universities and of society at large struggling to gain acceptance as queer and transsexual, and whether or not academics want to deliberate on what it even means to be of a gender, universities and the people involved with universities seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of protecting the current progressive status quo of gender identity.
I think there needs to be an important distinction made. Academic inquiry into the nature of gender is fine. But oppressing those already struggling to gain acceptance in society is not okay.
To that end, I'm not sure I understand the bullets listed at the bottom of the post:
>We affirm the right of transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals to live free of harassment and abuse, and we welcome them enthusiastically as fellow participants in the profession of philosophy.
>We reject calls for censuring or deplatforming any of our colleagues on the basis of their philosophical arguments about sex and gender identity, or their social and political advocacy for sex-based rights.
Is this not a contradiction? If we are looking to protect philosophers' "social and political advocacy for sex-based rights", it seems implied that this includes advocacy in opposition to the previously stated "right of transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals to live free of harassment and abuse".
Even within academic discourse, there is an Overton window. The window may be wider for academics but it still exists. I don't know who gets to decide the Overton window for academics, but there are topics which are certainly out. We can all agree that sympathizing with genocide or advocating racism, things of that nature, are outside the Overton window for academics. If a philosopher muses "maybe killing all Jews is okay", he or she would be removed from the institution, and rightfully so.
The question here is where the Overton window's edge lies in the realm of gender identity. My opinion is that the window ends where people's rights begin. If you want to ask "does gender even exist? Is gender identity a meaningful form of expression?", fine. If you want to say "gender doesn't exist, so don't protect transgender folk from discrimination in legislation", you have gone too far.
Who defines the Overton window in reality? There is no "Board of Acceptable Philosophy". The process we have now of internet rage mobs and "deplatforming" is arguably the most democratic way society has ever had of enforcing an Overton window, but that's not a good thing in the context of academia, which should rightfully be separate from society at large. I think in the old days, the outdated ideas would simply die off with the thinkers who hold them, reflecting the changes in the world in slow motion.
We can compare that to the 10 trans people murdered (according to Wiki) just this year alone. And that's just the ones Wiki editors decided merited inclusion. There are probably more, some unknown, and countless other trans individuals who face violence and harassment on a near daily basis.
Meanwhile, the hollowness of these arguments and the crocodile tears of the people who focus on them is laid bare when considers the amount of anti-BDS legislation that have been passed, with many universities requiring speakers to sign statements saying they will not and have never engaged in BDS.
These people, these "philosophers", simply want to be allowed to be transphobic in public without consequences. But that's the real heart of freedom and free speech. You can say what you what, it's true, but you're not free from people talking back or deciding they don't want to hear from you.
70x more people will be crushed by soda machines this year.
Why the scare quotes around "philosophers"? They are university academics in the field of philosophy.
The question of "what is a woman" seems to be obviously the sort of question that a philosopher should be engaging with. If you don't want to hear their thoughts on that don't read their journals, but to declare the question out of bounds seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of what philosophy is.
Other statements that are obviously philosophical include:
"Sex and gender are two different things" "Gender is a spectrum" "Sex is a spectrum" "A person can change their sex"
And I am not persuaded by the argument that people's free speech is not violated if their career is merely ruined, but they are not put in prison. You can be sure that the blacklisting of Colin Kaepernick sent a clear message to every black NFL player that they were not free to share their support for BLM. :-(