Culture Intellectual freedom Intelligent Design Science

Guns facing the wrong way: Journal Nature displays deadly weakness on “science and bigotry”

Spread the love

Announcing from on high that it is Against Discrimination, Nature tells us: Science cannot and should not be used to justify prejudice.  No indeed. But is there any general wish that it did? Then,

Difference between groups may therefore provide sound scientific evidence. But it’s also a blunt instrument of pseudoscience, and one used to justify actions and policies that condense claimed group differences into tools of prejudice and discrimination against individuals — witness last weekend’s violence by white supremacists in Charlottesville, Virginia, and the controversy over a Google employee’s memo on biological differences in the tastes and abilities of the sexes.

A nice touch that, to equate hapless engineer Damore’s ejection from the Goolag with white supremacist violence.

The two situations are not remotely similar. Damore discovered that on a number of subjects, evidence thoughtfully considered does not matter, however respectfully  offered. So then is irrational rage becoming an essential virtue even in science and engineering, as it has now become in (what used to be) arts disciplines?

As we have noted before, the guns are facing the wrong way. The threat to science today is post-modernism: You know, objective fact is sexist, algebra is racist, science is about the personal bummers of scientists…

If  Nature cannot deal with this  problem, fine. Someone eventually must. But everyone will remember Nature’s failure.

See also: Nature: Stuck with a battle it dare not fight, even for the soul of science. Excuse me guys but, as in so many looming strategic disasters, the guns are facing the wrong way.

44 Replies to “Guns facing the wrong way: Journal Nature displays deadly weakness on “science and bigotry”

  1. 1

    “The threat to science today is post-modernism…”

    Bingo!

  2. 2
    PaV says:

    We are descending into the depths of irrationality. Passion now replaces reason. IOW, we’re on our way to hell.

    Trump tells the truth about what happened in Charlotsville, and is denounced and seethed at. Terry McAuliffe lies about the crowds in Charlotsville, and not a peep is heard.

    The media have now become the Jacobins. And it is but a matter of time before the “guillotines” are set in place. God help you if you don’t think in a PC way. The Devil delights.

  3. 3
    ichisan says:

    @PaV:

    We are descending into the depths of irrationality.

    It’s heartbreaking. Humanity has been invaded by alien demonic spirits, evil mind snatchers obsessed with strife, hatred, war, bloodshed and misery.

  4. 4
    rvb8 says:

    PaV @2,

    a woman was murdered in Charlotsville by a known neo-nazi.

    ‘Trump tells the truth about what happened in Charlottesville..’ Ah-Huh.

    Now do you understand why ID is not taken even remotely seriously by those who demand evidence? It is because even when the video, sound, onlookers, and protestors say the woman was mowed down, Trump (or ID, take your pick), comes along and says, ‘it all went swimmingly, no problem here, physical evidence proves nothing, Heh:).’

    And PaV, you believe that? You are an apt supporter of an unevidenced psudo-science position, any evidence, especially no evidence, is proof ID is real.

    What next? No ark found on Arrarat, therefore Noah’s journey actually happened? Wait, you believe that too, don’t you?

  5. 5
    Bob O'H says:

    Announcing from on high that it is Against Discrimination, Nature tells us: Science cannot and should not be used to justify prejudice. No indeed. But is there any general wish that it did?

    There’s a long history of doing just that (look at eugenics, for example).

    A nice touch that, to equate hapless engineer Damore’s ejection from the Goolag with white supremacist violence.

    I didn’t read this in the same way – the two issues have similar themes (as the editorial points out), and they are clear to say what went on in both cases (“…last weekend’s violence …”, “… the controversy over …”).

    More generally, I trust you’ve thought hard about placing UD on the same side of an issue as racists and bigots.

  6. 6
    News says:

    Bob O’H: We are on the side of reason, evidence and free enquiry. Damore had, so far as we know, nothing to do with the murder and mayhem in Charlotteville. Accident of timing in the month of hot weather stories.

    You do yourself no favour by joining the pack howl and will gain no respect for it here.

  7. 7
    Bob O'H says:

    News – I like to think that I am also on the side of reason, evidence and free enquiry, as (I am sure) do the editors of Nature. I haven’t seen anyone suggest that Damore had anything to do with Charlotteville either (and that includes the editors at Nature). You seem to be attacking the editors on the basis of your mis-reading of their piece.

    I wonder if you disagree with the conclusion of the editorial:

    Good science follows the data, and there is nothing in any data anywhere that can excuse or justify policies that discriminate against the potential of individuals or that systematically reinforce different roles and status in society for people of any gender or ethnic group.

  8. 8
    News says:

    Bob O’H at 8: No one could disagree with such a poisonously bland claim as “Good science follows the data, and there is nothing in any data anywhere that can excuse or justify policies that discriminate against the potential of individuals or that systematically reinforce different roles and status in society for people of any gender or ethnic group.”

    But what surrounded it? Mentioning the Damore case at all was disgraceful and suggests that science institutions are preparing to cave.

    Come on, you can do better than this.

  9. 9
    asauber says:

    I like to think that I am also on the side of reason, evidence and free enquiry

    Bob O’h,

    Is that what the voices from HGTTG tell you?

    Andrew

  10. 10
    john_a_designer says:

    Bob provided us with this quote:

    Good science follows the data, and there is nothing in any data anywhere that can excuse or justify policies that discriminate against the potential of individuals or that systematically reinforce different roles and status in society for people of any gender or ethnic group.

    So Bob is now a moral absolutist? Where is his basis for that? Who is Bob to tell us or anyone else what to believe and think?

    “Honest”* atheists admit they have no basis for morality. See the comments I made yesterday:

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-dont-atheists-trust-each-other/#comment-637914

    *Of course, how do we know an atheist is being honest when he is the one who sets the standards of honesty? It’s one thing if he sets standard for himself. It’s quite another when he tries to impose his personal standards on everyone else.

  11. 11
    Bob O'H says:

    News @ 8 – goods, so we all agree on the main point of the editorial. So why attack it? You seem to be attacking the whole article because of one point (mentioning two issues in the same sentence).

    john_a_designer @ 10 – I have no idea why you would think I’m a moral absolutist. I provided a quote from someone else and asked if Denyse agreed with it. Where did I tell other people what to think?

  12. 12
    asauber says:

    JAD,

    Bob is so eager to virtue signal his pals, he has no conception of how he appears to normal people.

    Andrew

  13. 13
    ET says:

    Good science follows the data, and there is nothing in any data anywhere that can excuse or justify policies that discriminate against the potential of individuals or that systematically reinforce different roles and status in society for people of any gender or ethnic group.

    Survival of the fittest and competition for resources. In other words evolution by means of natural selection, drift and any other blind, mindless process. If that scenario is true then that conclusion (of the paper) is not warranted.

  14. 14
    ET says:

    rvb8:

    Now do you understand why ID is not taken even remotely seriously by those who demand evidence?

    ID has the evidence whereas your position does not. If your position had the evidence then ID would be falsified and yet ID is stronger than ever.

  15. 15
    tribune7 says:

    rvb8 @4– Trump (or ID, take your pick), comes along and says, ‘it all went swimmingly, no problem here, physical evidence proves nothing, Heh:).’

    How do you interpret a unambiguous recognition and condemnation of violence as “it all went swimmingly”?

    Maybe your side isn’t taken as seriously as you think it is.

  16. 16

    My man, rvb8. Still desperately waiting for the penny to drop. Smile.

  17. 17
    ichisan says:

    rvb8: Trump (or ID, take your pick), comes along and says, ‘it all went swimmingly, no problem here, physical evidence proves nothing, Heh:).’

    I must have missed that news. With blatant lies like this, arguing with Darwinists and materialists is a complete waste of time.

  18. 18
    ichisan says:

    Based on rvb8’s comment @4 above, is it safe to assume that, overall, leftists/democrats are Darwinists, materialists and man-made climate change alarmists while conservatives/republicans are ID supporters and opponents of man-made climate change?

  19. 19
    News says:

    ichisan at 18, it is not quite that simple. For one thing, it isn’t clear how many people rvb8 speaks for. (Phone booth?) Many of us would like science to be grounded more in evidence, less in metaphysics. This controversy illustrates the problem.

  20. 20
    Bob O'H says:

    If rvb8 speaks for a phone booth, he might have superman in there.

    Hm, he might actually be superman.

  21. 21
    rvb8 says:

    To all, save Bob,

    I said, @4, “when the video, sound, onlookers and protestors say the woman was mowed down, Trump (or ID, take your pick), comes along and says, ‘it all went swimmingly, no problem here, physical evidence proves nothing.Hee hee:)’

    My attempt was to link the loose understanding of truth many Christians have when they are defending their faith (the Dover trial witnesses for the defense for example), and the altright’s take on events in Charlottesville.

    Now I’m surprised (actually ID advocates so I’m not surprised) that my meaning could be misconstrued; here it is in simplar terms.

    A woman was murdered by a neo-NAZI. The entire Democratic, and almost (almost? SHAME!!), the entire Republican party, denounced this. Trump dillied and dellied. Then he said there was bad on both sides; True, but irrelevaent, the criminal was from the extreme right; a NAZI lover; you?

    Question; where do you stand NEWS, on this horrific act of terrorism, committed in the US, by neo-NAZIS, and I can only speculate, God fearing Christians?

    ichisan @17,

    you say I am a blatant liar. What part of my account above of the terrorist murder of this woman, by a neo-NAZI (probably Christian), is a blatant lie? Do tell!

  22. 22
    john_a_designer says:

    The fact is NO ONE would have died at Charlottesville if Antifa– a far left hate group hadn’t showed up.

    The left in general and the radical left in particular, has a reflexive desire to shut down the expression of any opinion it disagrees with. The left demonstrates this with speech codes on college campuses or in the most recent example, the firing of James Damore from Google because he dared to question liberal orthodoxy.

    There is a connection with Damore firing if we factor in the intolerance of the left which wants to suppress freedom of thought, conscience and belief (religion.)

    Antifa is simply the logical extension of liberalism. When all else fails, use violence to silence anyone you disagree with.

    No one had to die this past weekend. No one had to get hurt. The left does not realize the fundamentals of something most real Americans understand. We have a free market of ideas in this country and stupid ideas, like the white nationalist rally, die on their own. That is, unless someone decides they want to throw a match on the puddle of gasoline.

    Had the radical left Antifa crowd just left the white nationalists alone, the “unite the right” rally would have had three minutes of coverage and no one would have cared. It would have quickly been consigned to the eternal darkness of the oblivion where bad ideas go to die.

    But no, Antifa showed up wanting a fight and the white nationalists were all too happy to oblige them. And this week there will be a funeral and people will be released from the hospital because of that.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....ttesville/

    Why is the MMM ignoring the incendiary violence of this far left group?

    It appears to me that the local authorities and police may also bear some responsibility here. The First amendment protects freedom of speech (even “offensive” speech) and the freedom of assembly but not violence. There was clearly an intent of violence here on both sides. For example, many of them came wearing helmets with club, baseballs and shields. That was not the intent to be peaceful. However, it is the responsibility of the local police and not some outside vigilante group to maintain law and order.

  23. 23
    john_a_designer says:

    Correction MMM should be MSM, mainstream media.

  24. 24
    News says:

    If Bob O’H at 20 thinks that rvb8 has Superman with him in the phone booth, he must not think so much of Superman. The real story here is that these people do not want to talk about the post-modern invasion of science.

  25. 25
    john_a_designer says:

    I wish Trump had said something like, “Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”

    Wait a minute not only did President Trump say something like that that is exactly what he said. Here is the full transcript:

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/08/14/statement-president-trump

    Apparently, Bob and rvb8 don’t know that there transcripts available online that they can actually read. They can read can’t they? But maybe they don’t need to. Maybe, unlike the rest of us, they can see into Donald Trump’s heart. Do atheists believe we have hearts, souls and minds?

  26. 26
    daveS says:

    JAD,

    If he had then left it there and not gone off-script during Tuesday’s press conference, then he might be in better shape now. Better still if he had used those words on Saturday.

  27. 27
    john_a_designer says:

    In other words, he would have been politically correct.

  28. 28
    daveS says:

    In other words, he would have been politically correct.

    In a manner of speaking, yes.

    The point is that people expect him to say something like the words you quoted, the first time, clearly and without ambiguity.

  29. 29
    ichisan says:

    Bob and rvb8 are not humans. Their minds have been snatched by evil aliens intent on spreading calumnies, hatred and wars among humans. There are venomous snakes among us. Just saying.

  30. 30
    Bob O'H says:

    JAD @ 25 – Huh? What are you on about? Where did I even mention Donald Trump?

    ichisan – Not human? Really?

  31. 31
    asauber says:

    Not human? Really?

    Just overgrown fetuses.

    Andrew

  32. 32
    ichisan says:

    @asauber: Just overgrown fetuses.

    LOL

  33. 33
    john_a_designer says:

    Dave @ 26 responding to my comment @ 25:

    If he had then left it there and not gone off-script during Tuesday’s press conference, then he might be in better shape now. Better still if he had used those words on Saturday.

    Me @ 27:
    In other words, he would have been politically correct.

    Dave @ 28:
    In a manner of speaking, yes.

    The point is that people expect him to say something like the words you quoted, the first time, clearly and without ambiguity.

    What people? Ordinary people? Or the mainstream media? The MSM did everything it could to exploit this tragedy. To what end? Ratings and the bottom line. You do understand, Dave, that Cable and TV Network news is big business? Why aren’t you disturbed by that? Frankly I am very skeptical that any of them speak for the ordinary man.

    Of course, studies also show that most MSM journalists are on the political left. Is it ethical for them to be pushing a political agenda with their reporting? Shouldn’t they be reporting both sides of the news?

  34. 34
    daveS says:

    JAD,

    Yes, ordinary people, although for obvious reasons they are not quoted in the media regularly. I believe their views are reflected accurately in the following quotes from less ordinary people:

    “We should call evil by its name. My brother didn’t give his life fighting Hitler for Nazi ideas to go unchallenged here at home. -OGH,” –Orrin Hatch

    “Start with disavowing Nazis. Then disavow the KKK. Then disavow other creepy racists and bigots. I’ll let you know when to stop.” — William Kristol

    Charles Krauthammer said he was “shocked” that President Trump failed to explicitly name the racist groups who rioted in Charlottesville, Va. on Saturday.

    ***
    “The president did not do what was natural,” he said, adding that most Americans were “utterly revolted by right-wing white supremacist neo-Nazi groups.” –Charles Krauthammer

    “We must be clear. White supremacy is repulsive. This bigotry is counter to all this country stands for. There can be no moral ambiguity.” –Paul Ryan

    “We should be abundantly clear. White supremacy, Nazism, and hate have no place in our society. We must condemn it on no uncertain terms.” — Darrell Issa

  35. 35
    tribune7 says:

    rvb @21 — A woman was murdered by a neo-NAZI. —

    What would Clarence Darrow say?

    What if Fields, well, ends up being acquitted? http://billlawrenceonline.com/.....acquittal/

  36. 36
    kairosfocus says:

    Folks,

    Given some guilt by association rhetoric above, I think a reminder from earlier this year may help us balance thinking — and those who could imagine (on years of track record) that Antifa is a peaceful, legitimate protest movement are at best naive:

    What is a Fascist or a Nazi?

    https://uncommondescent.com/free-speech/you-fascist-really-what-is-a-true-fascist/

    With this on agit prop street theatre games:

    https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/the-problem-of-agit-prop-street-theatre/

    Notice, one of the Alinsky rules is to polarise by creating a perception that we are angels and you are devils. The evidence is, we all struggle with the moral challenge and particularly with speck in your eye, plank in mine hypocrisy. So, a sober balance is needed. Likewise, every era in which there is sharp controversy will have extremists popping up and will have isolated or organised mad men doing destructive things. In a reasonably democratic — or even just a lawful — community there is never an excuse for rioting or the like, from ANY side. Cf the town clerk of Ephesus in Ac 19. And yes, that is history we need to be reminded of, from the controversial preacher and social-economic impact of his message as people were stirred by truth and right, to Demetrius and his manipulation to the baying mob to the behind the scenes steps to the Clerk’s sober warning and dismissal. (In recent weeks Ac was a great comfort to me.)

    The manipulated, angry, destructive mob must never be let loose or excused from any quarter. And law and law enforcement have a nature of man as a morally governed creature duty to uphold and protect the due balance — a key word — of rights, freedoms and responsibilities for all. (Not just the politically correct or the useful, expedient, readily manipulated factions.)

    We need to stop and think about what is happening when riotous extremists are in the streets and too many are tossing rhetorical grenades like “nazi” around with little pause to soberly discuss accurate history etc as a basis for sound understanding and sober decision.

    Democracy too easily becomes marches of folly by manipulated mobs, as I have often pointed out from Ac 27.

    I again point us back to the empirical, inductive warrant for the design inference on a base of trillions of observed cases (with no counter-examples of say FSCO/I seen to arise by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity) as a base-line. In that light, re-assess the ideologically loaded redefinition of science to exclude such and its imposition by manipulation and domination. If science is not an empirically grounded search for the truth in an open minded, open ended spirit, it is little more than rabid atheistical agendas dressed up in the lab coat to give it an air of unquestionable authority.

    It is time for sober re-thinking.

    In that light, kindly reconsider the OP, noting what is dragged in by Nature, by way of guilt by association even while the history of the decades long domination of say Eugenics is conveniently lost down the forget the past hole:

    Announcing from on high that it is Against Discrimination, Nature tells us: Science cannot and should not be used to justify prejudice. No indeed. But is there any general wish that it did? Then,

    Difference between groups may therefore provide sound scientific evidence. But it’s also a blunt instrument of pseudoscience, and one used to justify actions and policies that condense claimed group differences into tools of prejudice and discrimination against individuals — witness last weekend’s violence by white supremacists in Charlottesville, Virginia, and the controversy over a Google employee’s memo on biological differences in the tastes and abilities of the sexes.

    A nice touch that, to equate hapless engineer Damore’s ejection from the Goolag with white supremacist violence.

    The two situations are not remotely similar. Damore discovered that on a number of subjects, evidence thoughtfully considered does not matter, however respectfully offered. So then is irrational rage becoming an essential virtue even in science and engineering, as it has now become in (what used to be) arts disciplines?

    As we have noted before, the guns are facing the wrong way. The threat to science today is post-modernism: You know, objective fact is sexist, algebra is racist, science is about the personal bummers of scientists…

    If Nature cannot deal with this problem, fine. Someone eventually must. But everyone will remember Nature’s failure.

    It is time to re-think.

    KF

    PS: This from News Aug 9 on events at Google is also food for thought:

    But let’s not lose track of the main point: Fact and evidence no longer matter in the powerful post-modern social media world. A war on the intellect is sure to follow their current war on freedom of thought and expression. Many volleys at once of pop science pieces around the notion that consciousness is an illusion may give early warning.

    The progressives waging the war imagine that they are cementing their own position but they are mistaken. They are only cementing tyranny as such. Once an absolutist system is set up, anyone can turf them and take it over, and someone will. The same way that an absolute monarch can be replaced by a dictator for life. The dictator does not need to teach people who have never been free how to bow, scrape, cringe, lie, and snitch. Only free people object to that kind of thing.

  37. 37
    john_a_designer says:

    DaveS @ 34,

    Yes, ordinary people, although for obvious reasons they are not quoted in the media regularly. I believe their views are reflected accurately in the following quotes from less ordinary people:

    From those quotes you can somehow channel what ordinary people are thinking and believing?

    Here is a poll from CBS News:

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americans-divided-over-trumps-response-to-charlottesville-cbs-news-poll/

    “Nearly two-thirds of Americans consider the attack that led to loss of life in Charlottesville an act of ‘domestic terrorism,’ a view that spans partisan lines.”

    I most certainly agree.

    “But President Trump’s response to Charlottesville finds more division.”

    According to the poll 67% of Republicans approved of the president Trump’s response to the attack and 68% agreed that Trump’s description of who is to blame is accurate.

    Are they all racists and bigots Dave?

    So democrats and secular progressives self-righteously fighting hate by hating a Republican president and the Republican rank and file is how we can solve our problems.

  38. 38
    daveS says:

    JAD,

    From those quotes you can somehow channel what ordinary people are thinking and believing?

    I haven’t done a scientific survey, but those quotes do reflect the views of people I have known, IMO.

    About 15 years ago a neo-Nazi organization expressed some interest in setting up a compound in my area (inside a very “red” county). The local community was almost 100% unified in denouncing the organization and in making it clear that they would not be welcome here. That’s one experience I draw on when I judge that the quotes I posted represent the views of ordinary people accurately.

    According to the poll 67% of Republicans approved of the president Trump’s response to the attack and 68% agreed that Trump’s description of who is to blame is accurate.

    Are they all racists and bigots Dave?

    No. It’s not surprising that Republicans would view the president’s statements more favorably than the public as a whole, obviously. Notice that overall, 34%–35% approve and 55% disapprove. All assuming this MSM source is accurate, of course.

  39. 39
    john_a_designer says:

    Here is a thought we all need to keep in mind:

    You might want laws to silence bigots, but the truth is, those are the exact kinds of laws that could someday be used to silence you. Everyone, after all, has a different view of what does and does not constitute “hate speech.” It can be terrifying to encounter hateful speech — believe me, I know — but having a government that can “protect” you from it means that your own rights are subject to the whims of whoever happens to be in power at the time. And that, to me, is far more terrifying.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/.....ree-speech

    BTW I am quoting someone who disagrees with me (about the adequacy of Trump’s response.) Please read the whole article to get the context.

  40. 40
    john_a_designer says:

    The main thing that precipitated the tragic events in Charlottesville was the misguided “politically correct” decision by its city council to remove a statue of the confederate general Robert E. Lee from its city park. Why was it misguided? Because those who made decision don’t really understand history.

    My great grandfather fought in the American Civil War for the north, so I have no sympathy with the southern cause. But the civil war statues and monuments, especially those that honor those who fought for the south, signify a far sighted decision that President Abraham Lincoln made. After the war he decided not to take revenge but rather to undertake reconciliation.

    Arthur Herman, “who is a scholar, a historian — a Pulitzer Prize finalist historian, and the New York Times–bestselling author of nine books — and a lifelong Civil War buff” does a much better job of explaining as to why this is important better than I ever could. What follows is from an article he recently wrote.

    These are not ”monuments to ‘traitors.’” Herman writes,

    “Abraham Lincoln set that issue aside as soon as the war ended, by making it clear that there would be no trials or punishments for the rebels who had fought for the Confederacy and that the national agenda would be reconciliation, not retribution, in order that Americans might come together again as one nation, indivisible. And that has been the lasting legacy of the Civil War, ever since. It is in fact the true face of American exceptionalism, that we Americans could fight a savage and bloody civil war, in which more than 600,000 died and thousands more were maimed and wounded, and still be able to honor the heroes of both sides. That never happened with other civil wars. It didn’t happen in Ireland or Spain or Russia, and it won’t happen in Iraq…

    This is why making Lee the target of these attacks is both ironic and tragic. Just before the surrender at Appomattox Courthouse, one of his officers proposed instead that they draw off into the hills to continue the fight against the Federals in a guerilla war. Lee firmly said no. The South had fought its war and lost; after the surrender, he wanted his men to return to their homes and return to being Americans. As any reader of Jay Winik’s book April 1865 also knows, after the war Lee also worked for reconciliation between black and white, in hopes that together they could build a new South now that the slaveholding version was gone forever.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/.....fice-valor

    Someone once said, “Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.” As a country we (the U.S.A.) are in danger of doing just that.

    Taking revenge, which is really what the secular progressive left is doing, after 150 years (again, without understanding the reasons why the monuments were erected) is not merely misguided it is irrational and dangerous.

  41. 41
    john_a_designer says:

    The following is a statement made jointly by Robert P. George (Princeton University) and Cornel West (Harvard University) with which I whole heartedly agree.

    The pursuit of knowledge and the maintenance of a free and democratic society require the cultivation and practice of the virtues of intellectual humility, openness of mind, and, above all, love of truth. These virtues will manifest themselves and be strengthened by one’s willingness to listen attentively and respectfully to intelligent people who challenge one’s beliefs and who represent causes one disagrees with and points of view one does not share.

    That’s why all of us should seek respectfully to engage with people who challenge our views. And we should oppose efforts to silence those with whom we disagree—especially on college and university campuses. As John Stuart Mill taught, a recognition of the possibility that we may be in error is a good reason to listen to and honestly consider—and not merely to tolerate grudgingly—points of view that we do not share, and even perspectives that we find shocking or scandalous. What’s more, as Mill noted, even if one happens to be right about this or that disputed matter, seriously and respectfully engaging people who disagree will deepen one’s understanding of the truth and sharpen one’s ability to defend it.

    None of us is infallible. Whether you are a person of the left, the right, or the center, there are reasonable people of goodwill who do not share your fundamental convictions. This does not mean that all opinions are equally valid or that all speakers are equally worth listening to. It certainly does not mean that there is no truth to be discovered. Nor does it mean that you are necessarily wrong. But they are not necessarily wrong either. So someone who has not fallen into the idolatry of worshiping his or her own opinions and loving them above truth itself will want to listen to people who see things differently in order to learn what considerations—evidence, reasons, arguments—led them to a place different from where one happens, at least for now, to find oneself.

    https://jmp.princeton.edu/statement

  42. 42
    daveS says:

    JAD,

    FTR, I agree with the content in your #39 and #41. I don’t want to get into a broader debate on Charlottesville in general, so I won’t comment on #40.

  43. 43
    john_a_designer says:

    DaveS,

    So, you believe that freedom of thought, conscience/belief and expression is a universal human right? Based on what?

  44. 44
    daveS says:

    JAD,

    Do your posts mention universal human rights?

    I’m really not interested in discussing such things at the moment, in any case.

Leave a Reply