if holding the wrong opinion in a conversation is morally wrong, one ought to converse in a way that welcomes and seeks being refuted.
I see some echoes of this in the advice about steelmanning friends and family who are in to conspiracies. But it's hard to imagine going into a conversation with say a flat earth theory believer and really want to be proven wrong about the sphere..
"I won't debate you" is fine. "Anyone who does gets tainted by the other side's cooties" is not. There are loud people aggressively pushing that norm and trying to blur this distinction.
Hmm, what is a morally unacceptable debate? How is it defined and who agrees to the definition?
I've been trying very hard most of my life not to have mental or discussion taboos. I may find a position, request, action, etc disagreeable or even reprehensible, but I see no winning outcome in making it a taboo. And I struggle to visualize a debate itself that is morally unacceptable. Quite the opposite.
(on the other hand there are certainly debates I am tired of, amd frequently ponder how to handle people / situations that bring same tired arguments I've seen rehashed, and usually debunked, myriad times before. But that's not the same as morally unacceptable that's just me being lazy and or having limited time and energy on this earth :)
An immoral debate depends on the definition of a corrupt debate. A corrupt debate is where:
1) debaters willfully produce responses that contain bad arguments or logical fallacies
2) debaters willfully conduct arguments toward an audience without knowledge of logical fallacies and/or without knowledge of critical thinking
3) debaters willfully conduct arguments in a venue or theater where non-logical aspects of communication could manipulate the behavior of others, and leverage those aspects in the delivery of their arguments.
A corrupt debate is an immoral debate if performed where the debate is part of a process affecting a large number of people who consider themselves a society, because:
1) while those debating look like they are arguing and analyzing an issue, and trying to come to a logically correct conclusion, they are really manipulating an audience to effect a desired outcome,
2) if debate is the foundation of determining the direction of a society, corrupt debate skews it towards the will of specific individuals rather than objective truth.
So basically an "immoral debate" would be one that's propaganda in disguise? But why would it be inherently immoral to knowingly propagandize a false idea? What if believing a particular false idea leads to behavior that's safer in large scale? For example, you convince everyone that, I don't know, gasoline makes you impotent. Your rhetoric is so good that everyone is convinced, even in the absence of evidence, and people stop driving so much and pollution is reduced.
Is it immoral to use rhetoric to spread false ideas for a good reason?
Following your example, you've reduced pollution, but now millions of people who work in the gasoline supply chain have lost jobs. These people get addicted to drugs, increase crime, and now you can't leave your house, but you do have clean air.
A logical debate without propaganda might have taken that into account.
Funny thing: I'd classify Plato's dialogs as immoral debates by this definition. (Admittedly that's debatable. You could say they're not debates at all, for instance.)
I've taken Philosophy 101 and Ethics 101 (admittedly not much further), and I've never found an inkling that discussion/debate itself is immoral; I don't even know how you'd consider an idea, to label it as moral or immoral, without, you know, considering and debating it (internally or externally).
I can debate the best way to kill grandma; I will even find it intellectually stimulating; heck, I just spent a few minutes now that you brought it up pondering that (it's the whole "don't think of pink Elephant" schtick:); without in any way implying acceptance of the premise, condoning the action, or considering actually doing it. Does your brain work different? Can you disentangle a concept and idea from action and emotion? I don't feel you're making your point persuasively, or the choice of phrasing may be ambiguous.
> But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion
This applies to flat earth theory believers as well. If they are unable to refute the reasons for the sphere theory, they have no ground for preferring either theory.
There's also the part "where he must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest" and I have a hard time imagining that most conspiracy theorists actually believe their theories -- in my experience, most people cling to conspiracy theories because they're more convenient to them; the need to believe is stronger than the actual belief. But that viewpoint is exactly what Socrates was denouncing ;)
I find it extraordinary that in this day and age we're reaching levels of discourse so low level about such trivial ignorance. Really extraordinary, we're rediscussing (or re-wasting time) beliefs, truth, reality in ways I'd never think possible today.
> most people cling to conspiracy theories because they're more convenient to them
The trend I've noticed is the theories or beliefs are being attached to one's own identity. Once engrained, it's hard to ever openly view other opposing beliefs.
> if holding the wrong opinion in a conversation is morally wrong
This is trivially answered in the negative. Arguing for sport is done all the time, and holding a "Devil's advocate" position should be done routinely to test the strength one's own arguments.
Are you kidding? If someone really has good evidence for the Earth being flat, that could potentially be one of the most important observations of all time!
As the Litany of Tarski goes:
“If the Earth is flat, I desire to believe the Earth is flat…” etc.
(Though, I will admit that it gets boring later when you’ve heard all the arguments and rebuttals.)
Same for "microwaves are bad" believers. They are angry people. Over what, I do not know, but I think they have a deep fear of their own ignorance and use anger to compensate. Somehow they learned at a young age the winner of an argument is perceived as correct or smart, and the way to win is to wear people down. Every conversation is arm wrestling.
Joe Rogan actually just made that basic point in his response regarding the Spotify controversy. He thanked even his haters and addressed the concerns. Some changes have already been made. He was very gracious to Neil Young to boot.
If more people had that kind of response and mindset, maybe we could get back to solving problems instead of the constant tit for tat tribalism that is in the process of destroying us.
Honest question: If Joe Rogan continues to amplify the voices of conspiracists, and his listeners continue to heed them -- for example, by refusing to get vaccinated against Covid -- does his thanking his "haters" matter? Isn't the point that he should stop providing a platform to people who deny that Covid is a threat or that climate change is real?
I don't mean to sound like a dick here. But I think it's a bit of a red herring to focus on the quality of someone's apology when they continue to do harm.
I reject that hypothesis. Open dialogue is not what's harmful and those who seek to silence or censor have never ended up on the right side of history. The only thing that works over the course of time is fighting bad information with better information.
Besides, no one could do as much damage as the official sources have done to themselves throughout the Covid pandemic. People are just forgetting the mountain of misinformation they spread. Starting with "masks don't work" and "closing travel is racist" and "the possibility of a lab leak is a crazy conspiracy theory". Big tech actually banned people for that and yet still think they should be the gatekeepers? Where is the humility? That's an environment not unlike that of Gallio. Which the church and priests who assert themselves as the source of truth while expelling the heretics.
"Open dialog" and "intentionally lying or misleading for political purposes" are in direct opposition. The latter kills former.
I am not saying censorship is answer necessary, but I am saying we should stop pretending the discussion has anything to do with open dialog or "adding information".
One doesn't have to be pro-government to recognize that Joe Rogan is acting in extremely bad faith. He has a lucrative financial agreement that incentivizes him to drive viewership - he's not promoting open dialogue, he's promoting topics and guests that will attract polemics to drive ratings.
You're describing the corporate media. Rogan is just doing what he's been doing for thousands of hours: Having conversations with a wide variety of people across the spectrum. Fundamentally people are trying to control and narrow who he has a conversation with. That's it.
When he had Bernie Sanders on (who he supported), Bernie was pressured to reject Rogan's support. Guilt by association. That's how tribal all of this is.
The corporate media definitely does it, and it didn't come as any surprise to me that Joe Rogan began fomenting controversy far more often after the $100M move to Spotify. Can't have an "open dialogue" with that much money in the balance.
I'm not sure that changes his payday at all and don't see that kind of change on his side. He had many controversial guests like Alex Jones prior to Spotify. He's been doing this since 2009 and has over 1,700 episodes.
The controversy is from the corporate media and other gatekeepers now attacking him. He's the tip of the spear that is threatening their business model and control over the narrative. It's not so much about Joe as it's about corporate media (gatekeepers) vs independent media (no gatekeepers). The same fight is being waged against Substack. They just lack this kind of central figure.
People had plenty of problems with Joe's guests before the Spotify contract - the blowback was immediate and Spotify removed dozens of episodes from his back-catalog:
I think its more controversial now only because people have leverage over Spotify - when he self hosted his show there really wasn't a way to protest. You could boycott the advertisers I guess but I don't think MeUndies and Butcher Box would have cared.
While I agree that the content of one's apology is largely irrelevant here (actions speak louder than words), the video makes two substantive claims about changes when controversial opinions about about covid-19 are presented:
1. A disclaimer at the beginning of the video will instruct people to consult their physician and provide a warning that the views expressed are "against the current consensus of experts."
2. When a controversial expert is interviewed, the following videos will feature experts who hold the mainstream viewpoint, serving to counterbalance the claims of a small minority.
Time will tell if this happens, but I find the above points far more meaningful than any apology.
I think when you call certain people conspiracists it’s unproductive. Who are you referring to? Sure Alex Jones is a nutty conspiracy theorist. But highly credentialed physicians and academics who simply have opinions that deviate from the established consensus? No, that’s unfair.
Did you watch the posted ten minute video? Have you watched any of his podcasts in full? He explains why he has those guests on and concedes with some gratitude the idea that he ought to have more guests on that can communicate the opposing views, especially soon after a controversial guest.
The alleged harm he’s perpetrating in having conversations is way less dangerous than a full-steam-ahead into uncritical, contrived, and corrupt thought control from established institutions and governments.
> But highly credentialed physicians and academics who simply have opinions that deviate from the established consensus?
This is called the Halo effect: someone who is good in one way is surely good in all ways.
If Terence Tao posted on his blog tomorrow that he has video proof that Hillary Clinton is a secret lizard person, I would certainly be shocked, and I might even read what he has to say, but I would still immediately classify him as a nutty conspiracy theorist (one who espouses a nutty conspiracy theory). It wouldn't really diminish everything else he's done, and I would view it as an incredibly sad case of an otherwise amazing brain getting infected by a particularly virulent mind-virus.
Say Joe Rogan split his segment into two halves, and the first half was devoted to someone arguing that the 14th century was invented by the Illuminati in order to hide the fact that Finland doesn't really exist and is just a cover to hide the fact that Russian fishermen discovered aliens there, who took their bodies and are now infiltrating society, etc. etc. The second half was devoted to an actual historian saying "um, no, that's really ridiculous for many reasons". Would you call that fair and balanced? Is that a good point-counterpoint? Hell no. It's the classic false equivalency, fake-centrist B.S. that is used so often to promote crazy and dangerous ideas.
Are you saying that lizard theory is fairly analogous to physicians questioning the efficacy of health protocols during an unprecedented global pandemic?
Arguing that Clinton is a lizard is not only analogous to claiming that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine does not work and is actually harmful, it's leaps and bounds worse. At least the lizard position can be viewed as a kind of satire or metaphorically. The claims of Dr. Robert Malone (who was the guest on JRE) about the mRNA vaccines are not a form of questioning or scientific skepticism, his position is categorical.
Would you watch a boxing match between Mike Tyson and some rando pulled out of a grocery store? By setting up the match, with equal time and equal terms between these two opposing ideas, the host is implicitly saying that these ideas are starting on near-equal footing. If you try to give every random crazy idea equal time with the truth, the truth gets drowned out.
The truth is subtle, nuanced, and complex. It takes long, in-depth study to understand. It's not always obvious to a layperson who is "debunking" whom. Just as we don't automatically expect a beautiful or useful crop to outcompete noxious weeds just because we like them better, we should not expect the truth to outcompete crazy in 20-minute podcast segments. Crazy is much better at spreading into brains than the truth, because that's exactly the selection pressure that led the crazy to evolve in the first place. True ideas don't evolve by being extremely good at sticking in your brain; they evolve when humans sit down and realize that that's not the appropriate arena for them.
> Isn't the point that he should stop providing a platform to people who deny <x>
No, people should listen and decide for themselves. By denying a platform, you often feed conspiracy theories and fringe ideas. This must be a powerful, true, and dangerous idea if so many people are trying to hide it.
Instead focus the discussion on how we experimentally determine which idea is more true. Ask people and consider yourself what it would take to disprove some of the things you believe to be true.
I think you may have meant to put "This must be a powerful, true, and dangerous idea if so many people are trying to hide it" in quotes -- to show that it might be the attitude of a conspiracy theorist towards efforts to hide the conspiracy.
> Ask people and consider yourself what it would take to disprove some of the things you believe to be true.
Sure. If the past 7 years had been the coldest on record, I'd be a lot more skeptical of the consensus theory of climate change. Instead, they were the hottest on record.[0] And yet Joe Rogan lets Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist (!), go one his show and claim that the theory of climate change is a fraud because: "Your models are based on a set number of variables. So that means you've reduced the variables -- which are everything -- to that set. But how did you decide which set of variables to include in the equation if it's about everything?"[1]
> By denying a platform, you often feed conspiracy theories and fringe ideas. This must be a powerful, true, and dangerous idea if so many people are trying to hide it.
It's not clear to me if you personally believe this statement or if it's a reference to irrational conspiratorial thinking. But we deny platforms all the time. You won't find Holocaust deniers getting equal time in a history textbook. You similarly won't find flat Earthers teaching geology at an accredited university. And when Joe Rogan got paid $100 million for having a popular podcast, he was incentivized to appeal to an increasingly irrational listener base, regardless of what the truth was.
If you watch that episode, Joe pushes back a bunch of times and even pulls up Google for a fact check. It's just that Joe is polite with his guests and that seems to confuse people who are used to Twitter style dunking. Is that what people are looking for? Should he kick off his guests or put them on guide rails? I don't think so. He has friendly conversations and disagrees in a polite way.
Also what Jordan said is being mischaracterized somewhat. You have to watch the whole explanation and ignore repackaged soundbites. He was (inartfully and perhaps incorrectly) challenging the accuracy of predictive models, which is a fair thing to do. It's not the end of the world. He can challenge it and others can present the counter argument.
Personally, I lost a lot of respect for Peterson over that quote/interview. Clearly all models are simplifications, that's the entire point. We can't simulate reality with full fidelity, anything more than a hydrogen atom requires a simplification.
Hearing Peterson directly say something non-sensical like that is an incredibly effective way to convince reasonable people that he is wrong. Allowing him to say that was much more effective than any attempt to cancel or silence him.
What really happened during the Holocaust? Let's call the truth theory A. Some people, who don't actually really care what happened during the Holocaust and seek to argue in bad faith, would love to see "equal time" be given to theory A and their own "theory", B. But we can take it further. Let's give equal time to each of theories A, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, ... B327 (ancient Egyptian mummies coming back for revenge against the Jews), B328 (an early prototype of their space laser malfunctioned), etc.
Now A gets 1% of the time and crazy gets 99% of the time. Decide for yourself what's true!
The most harmful conspiracies have always been the ones invented and circulated by the government and the corporate media outlets clutching their pearls about, "misinformation". Bay of Tonkin, babies ripped out of incubators, WMD in Iraq, Saran gas attacks by Syria, the president is a Russian spy. I don't mean to sound like a dick here, but I think it's a big of a red herring to focus on the supposedly harmful conspiracies being peddled by independent voices when the loudest and most powerful voices constantly peddle far more harmful conspiracies.
He's been saying that for years though, from the time he perpetuated 9/11 being an inside job, to arguing that the moon landing was a hoax, to his current position on COVID. What exact mindset inspired by Joe Rogan would you advocate for people? To believe in and promote fringe opinions for the sake of being contrarian, and then after some degree of damage has been done you go ahead apologize for it, say you're going to work harder only until the next fringe idea comes along for you to capitalize off of?
I don't agree that such a mindset would help accomplish much.
It doesn't sound like you're very familiar with the show given that Twitter-like characterization. At least watch that 10 minute video. The mindset in question is represented there.
The parent's response suggests that he's watched the show a lot, and probably more than you have. The Instagram video was vetted (and possibly written) by Spotify's legal team, and is not representative.
The mindset you describe is a mindset of exploration, adventure and tinkering. Occasionally it ends in catastrophe, but historically has been the driver of some of the greatest inventions. But such is the nature of nature; gains generally don’t come free.
Ergo, your obedient unquestioning good citizen mentality is far less progressive & beneficial than you think it is.
Funny, coz Socrates' interlocutors in Plato's dialogues exist only to agree and affirm all his arguments like bobbleheads, or to be epically dunked on.
Epistemic humility is more discussed for signalling purposes than actually practiced.
The Republic is a particularly notable example of this kind of thing:
I think the article is operating under the false assumption that most political discourse is meant to be a Socratic conversation. It's really not. Look at a political debate, or a talking heads show on cable news. There is no truth that is sought out, no hypotheses to accept, no exploration of if a conclusion follows the premises logically. All there is, is persuasive sound bytes, with no deference paid to the truth and no refraining from the "false opinion concerning the subjects of the present conversation".
The media drives a lot of this with the format of their shows/political debates. I'm sure these sound bytes are better for ratings, but they are poor for getting to the bottom of a political platform and how that's really best for the general population.
I don't know what Socratic dialogues you've been reading, but if somebody started speaking like they were out of one near me, I'd probably report them for being a replicant.
> The media drives a lot of this with the format of their shows/political debates. I'm sure these sound bytes are better for ratings, but they are poor for getting to the bottom of a political platform and how that's really best for the general population.
I only developed a more informed sense to follow the political sphere like five years ago or so. This is so true, the media and their need for quotes makes so many debates into a farce. Politicians seem like being in front of a judge instead of a truth-seeking interviewer. Not that politicians are overly known for truth-seeking but there is a certain line between for a reporter being investigative and sensational.
This is not all that different from the Athens Socrates operated in. A significant portion of Plato's work portrays Socrates interrogating various forms of sophists, politicians, generals; the "talking heads" of his time.
Socrates was a notorious weirdo, a bit like the Richard Stallman of Athens.
It is still possible to seek truth even if those arguing against you are seeking only political power.
Some of my most satisfying conversations have been with Machiavellian powermongers. They have compelling arguments and finely honed tactics of persuasion. Our arguments come away in pieces and new ideas are constructed out of the wreckage.
It is by disagreeing with someone that we get to explore the ideas we would never consider on our own. Some of my most novel ideas have come about by being refuted by others.
The anti-pattern version of this reminds me of a phrase I can't seem to source, which is, "to question by assertion," which means making assertions with the intent that the listener respond by refuting them. It's a really fast technique to get information (I think I learned it from reporters, prosecutors, or perhaps just my mother), where you assert the contrapositive or a begged question about the thing you want to know, and use the churning brain of the listener parsing it through to yield their view. It's supremely irritating and emotionally abusive to anyone who trusts you, and viewed this way I can see how Socrates got himself whacked, but I'd wonder if this tactic has a name in another discipline. The only effective defense is to blow off the question, set a firm personal boundary where you don't feel obligated to answer any questions at all because they aren't sincere inquiries, and dismiss them as traps.
If only Socrates were alive to have someone "well, actually..." him on the internet.
reply