All of these depend wholly on the idea that the truth, and being right matter, and are universally seen as good. If it actually suits you to lie, and deceive other people into supporting you, then the equation turns upside down. Then, you find free speech to be completely antithetical to your aims.
In that case, it's unacceptable to allow people to correct you. You have no intention of getting closer to the truth, and you need free speech restricted to prevent dissent, disagreement, and attempts to disprove you.
This reminds me a little of Steven Pinker's "Rationality," where he asks dissenters some form of "How are you going to convince me that reason doesn't matter, if not through reasoning?"
If someone claims to not care about the truth, doesn't think the truth is good, and doesn't think being right matters...what are they going to do with this information? If they try to argue it, they are behaving as though "the truth doesn't matter" is true and that "being right" is good by attempting to persuade others.
If they don't bother with that and instead employ any and all authoritarian means to get their way, it's obviously because they think they're right to do so—which means being right (and by extension, the truth) matters.
In either case, they are in the "I'm 100% correct" camp described in the piece above, and their failure to utilize Mill's trident simply puts them in league with the Lysenkos and Stalins of the world.
There's no escaping the fact that objective reality exists outside our perception, and there's no escaping Mill's trident as the only productive way to engage with that reality.
Depending on your view, “bias” may play an equally important role in your life as “truth.” For example you might give up a bit of truth for a bit of group cohesion. You might give up a bit of free speech for a bit of respect; or order; or productivity.
Bias plays an important role in choosing a college. In this post I describe how to use FIRE’s viewpoint ratio to make friends and predict campus discourse. The viewpoint ratio will help you find a cultural fit for college. It’s not all about truth. Bias may be equally important.
Greg:"freedom of speech is essential to allow people to correct you...help you get even closer to the truth...check your arguments"
Me:"No one says no"...? I've asked 1000s of people:"Did you know?"... and about 1% say no... even though no one knew it(they ghosted until I caught up with them).
IMHO, the culture has become less interested in new information(if it threatens their increasingly fragile egos?) ... likely due to the advent of "I'm not comfortable" being increasingly prevalent and the equivalent to "I quit"
In Haidt's "...Why US is Stupid..."[or?] ~7% of each of both extremes(left/right...etc) keep attacking and everyone else becomes silent.
Point: Are you assuming the "victims of truth" have adequate "Rejection Desensitization"...?
"The hatred and aggression of humans is exceeded only by our compulsion to deny what we are doing, or to justify it in the name of some “higher power” or belief. Because the weapons we now have are so potentially destructive, the cost of the aggression could be very high if anything suddenly develops in terms of Russia, Syria, North Korea, and so forth.
Everyone wants to be “right.” I have often said that TRUTH is the biggest cause of suffering in the world today! That probably sounds pedantic, or foolish, but I believe it to be pretty on target."
I've been evaluating "Mood" therapies since the 1970s. There are many ways to teach CBT. Lately I'm exploring:"First Do No Harm... Stop the Lying... Dr Haidt's The 3 Great Untruths that Gen Z believes that are dooming Gen Z and democracy include Exposure Therapy demonization and State Dependent Learning.
Thus renaming the 1980 original list of 10 thought distortions with "10 Lies"... or 3 Great Untruths" as Dr Haidt's done ( that's 3 of the original 10.).
"Don't Sweat It" is a lie... Exercise and Exposure Therapy are mandatory and both cause sweat.
"Do one thing every day that scares you."-- Eleanor Roosevelt
Subscribe for details 😁 but only if you're ready to serve on our Focus Group 😁
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. 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... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
Something have found to be REALLY TRUE. I am an Evangelical Christian and A Little To The Right of Attila The Hun. So very very often (I've come just assume I'll see this s the case) someone will criticize either my Faith or my Politics. BUT They have never really looked at What A Christian or A Conservative Says and Why We Say it. It's not that they are Stupid, its they are Ignorant. What I find worse is no interest or curiosity to find out. I mean its not like Christians or Right Wingers are hiding this.
Wonderful writing - explaining a really complicated idea very succinctly. Mill’s argument is very similar to Rumi’s - somewhere between right and wrong, there’s a garden. I’ll meet you there. However, I sometimes think that the current argument about free speech often isn’t actually about free speech at all - certainly not when the right talk about . For them it is about platforming of individuals - and how we seem to elevate, ironically, those who fail to under the nuance of Mill’s third point (a criticism that could be applied also to the horseshoe element of the left).
I agree with Mill's conclusion, but the third prong of the trident argument does not work. As put here the argument says, "If you are 100% correct (which is unlikely) you still need free speech for dissent, disagreement, and attempts to disprove you, both to check your arguments and to strengthen them." Elaborating: "Why worry about dissent if you’re 100% correct? Well, if you never have to defend your points of view there is a very good chance you don’t really understand them — and if you don’t fully understand them, then you are holding them the same way you would hold a prejudice or superstition: irrationally."
Now I am 100% correct in believing that 2+2=4. There is no need for me to encounter dissent, disagreement or attempts to disprove it. I certainly don't need those things, to strengthen my arguments; I don't believe this on the basis of any arguments, nor do I need any. It is just obvious. Also, I understand the proposition that 2+2=4 as well as possible, even though I have never had to defend this "point of view." And this does this make my belief a prejudice, or irrational.
If we are to defend free speech, as we should, we should not argue that knowledge, rationality, or understanding are impossible without it.
I’m not sure that this necessarily follows (but I’ll happily be proved incorrect…). On the one hand, you may have rather taken the argument to its extremes - almost ad absurdum. The original premise is qualified as ‘unlikely’ so not impossible. On the other, to also take it that direction, might it not be possible that there is a reality, beyond our comprehension, in which the principles of mathematics and logic might differ. I don’t know. Thinking it makes my head hurt. But I think the point stands. There are very few things which are certainties, certainly not in matters of right or wrong.
The question is whether it is okay to censor or punish those who deny or debate some statement S. The third prong of the argument is the case where S is true. The claim is: even if S is true, you still should not censor or punish those who deny or debate it (you "still need free speech"). The argument for this claim seems to be: without this free speech, you cannot know that S is true. But for some true statements S, that's absurd—2+2=4 is just one example, there are others (the earth is round, etc).
You might reply, okay, the argument does not secure free speech about things we know to be true, but no big deal, we know very little. But first, that's a more limited argument for free speech than is desired, and second, it's a mistake to concede that we know very little. We know a ton of things, but should still welcome free and open debate about them. Why? Not because such debate is always needed for knowledge in the first place.
I think what you’re effectively saying is that if you take Mill’s argument to its extremes, then you end up in logical absurdity. E.g. the only reason we know what 2+2 is, is because we can challenge it and that’s the reason for free speech.
For a start, are you guilty of a fallacy by looking at this argument as if presented in a vacuum. There are things we take as self evident now which weren’t seen as self evident in the past. That will happen in the future. We know a lot but, the more we know, the closer we come to the infinite.
More fundamentally, are you making this unnecessarily binary? Does an argument for free speech need be the only argument for free speech or can multiple ideas come together to create a deeper sense of holistic reasoning?
And lastly, even if one accepts that there are statements for which this reasoning is absurd, who becomes the arbiter of that absurdity and how is it regulated?
Isn’t there another layer to Mill’s idea here too which is that by disproving it one effectively proves it at the same time? I.e. the necessity of free speech to refute incorrect ideas?
Well put. Truth is true even if alone in a cave. We stray into the nihilistic realm of "values" proof becomes performative. A truth is a truth without being said (we hold these truths to be self-evident...), a "value" needs an audience, as I am sure Greg is well aware having named his book after Allen Bloom's classic. But the reality is that Truth, in a fallen world, still demands champions.
Both your video and Mill’s perspective neglect the importance of religion in our lives. For some questions, there is no truth; there is only what is right and what is wrong, for you, or for your group—a matter of emotions, preferences, religion, education, and differing facts. Our perspectives will differ because we have different facts. The events of October 7 and its aftermath have taught us that right and wrong depend on these facts.
Mr. Lukianoff - Depending on your view, there are values equally important or more important than truth. The First Amendment isn’t written just with truth in mind; the Founders carefully selected the words “religion” and “freedom of speech.” No mention of truth though! Why not?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
I believe the answer to this question lies in the meaning of education. What is the difference between education and religion in the context of the First Amendment. Please join me in exploring this topic at Trim to Truth.
All of these depend wholly on the idea that the truth, and being right matter, and are universally seen as good. If it actually suits you to lie, and deceive other people into supporting you, then the equation turns upside down. Then, you find free speech to be completely antithetical to your aims.
In that case, it's unacceptable to allow people to correct you. You have no intention of getting closer to the truth, and you need free speech restricted to prevent dissent, disagreement, and attempts to disprove you.
This reminds me a little of Steven Pinker's "Rationality," where he asks dissenters some form of "How are you going to convince me that reason doesn't matter, if not through reasoning?"
If someone claims to not care about the truth, doesn't think the truth is good, and doesn't think being right matters...what are they going to do with this information? If they try to argue it, they are behaving as though "the truth doesn't matter" is true and that "being right" is good by attempting to persuade others.
If they don't bother with that and instead employ any and all authoritarian means to get their way, it's obviously because they think they're right to do so—which means being right (and by extension, the truth) matters.
In either case, they are in the "I'm 100% correct" camp described in the piece above, and their failure to utilize Mill's trident simply puts them in league with the Lysenkos and Stalins of the world.
There's no escaping the fact that objective reality exists outside our perception, and there's no escaping Mill's trident as the only productive way to engage with that reality.
Depending on your view, “bias” may play an equally important role in your life as “truth.” For example you might give up a bit of truth for a bit of group cohesion. You might give up a bit of free speech for a bit of respect; or order; or productivity.
Bias plays an important role in choosing a college. In this post I describe how to use FIRE’s viewpoint ratio to make friends and predict campus discourse. The viewpoint ratio will help you find a cultural fit for college. It’s not all about truth. Bias may be equally important.
https://open.substack.com/pub/scottgibb/p/how-to-choose-a-college?r=nb3bl&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Greg:"freedom of speech is essential to allow people to correct you...help you get even closer to the truth...check your arguments"
Me:"No one says no"...? I've asked 1000s of people:"Did you know?"... and about 1% say no... even though no one knew it(they ghosted until I caught up with them).
IMHO, the culture has become less interested in new information(if it threatens their increasingly fragile egos?) ... likely due to the advent of "I'm not comfortable" being increasingly prevalent and the equivalent to "I quit"
In Haidt's "...Why US is Stupid..."[or?] ~7% of each of both extremes(left/right...etc) keep attacking and everyone else becomes silent.
Point: Are you assuming the "victims of truth" have adequate "Rejection Desensitization"...?
"TRUTH is the biggest cause of suffering"😁😁😁😁top CBT scienctist...
https://feelinggood.com/2017/03/23/is-happiness-a-distortion/
"The hatred and aggression of humans is exceeded only by our compulsion to deny what we are doing, or to justify it in the name of some “higher power” or belief. Because the weapons we now have are so potentially destructive, the cost of the aggression could be very high if anything suddenly develops in terms of Russia, Syria, North Korea, and so forth.
Everyone wants to be “right.” I have often said that TRUTH is the biggest cause of suffering in the world today! That probably sounds pedantic, or foolish, but I believe it to be pretty on target."
You’re mocking his assertion that capital T Truth can be a rationalization for aggression? That idea is completely in alignment with this post.
I've been evaluating "Mood" therapies since the 1970s. There are many ways to teach CBT. Lately I'm exploring:"First Do No Harm... Stop the Lying... Dr Haidt's The 3 Great Untruths that Gen Z believes that are dooming Gen Z and democracy include Exposure Therapy demonization and State Dependent Learning.
Thus renaming the 1980 original list of 10 thought distortions with "10 Lies"... or 3 Great Untruths" as Dr Haidt's done ( that's 3 of the original 10.).
"Don't Sweat It" is a lie... Exercise and Exposure Therapy are mandatory and both cause sweat.
"Do one thing every day that scares you."-- Eleanor Roosevelt
Subscribe for details 😁 but only if you're ready to serve on our Focus Group 😁
Liberals now allow each their own truth.
Greg - Love it , keep up the good work and creative thinking. The more arrows free speech advocates have in our quiver the better.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. 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... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
Something have found to be REALLY TRUE. I am an Evangelical Christian and A Little To The Right of Attila The Hun. So very very often (I've come just assume I'll see this s the case) someone will criticize either my Faith or my Politics. BUT They have never really looked at What A Christian or A Conservative Says and Why We Say it. It's not that they are Stupid, its they are Ignorant. What I find worse is no interest or curiosity to find out. I mean its not like Christians or Right Wingers are hiding this.
Wonderful writing - explaining a really complicated idea very succinctly. Mill’s argument is very similar to Rumi’s - somewhere between right and wrong, there’s a garden. I’ll meet you there. However, I sometimes think that the current argument about free speech often isn’t actually about free speech at all - certainly not when the right talk about . For them it is about platforming of individuals - and how we seem to elevate, ironically, those who fail to under the nuance of Mill’s third point (a criticism that could be applied also to the horseshoe element of the left).
I agree with Mill's conclusion, but the third prong of the trident argument does not work. As put here the argument says, "If you are 100% correct (which is unlikely) you still need free speech for dissent, disagreement, and attempts to disprove you, both to check your arguments and to strengthen them." Elaborating: "Why worry about dissent if you’re 100% correct? Well, if you never have to defend your points of view there is a very good chance you don’t really understand them — and if you don’t fully understand them, then you are holding them the same way you would hold a prejudice or superstition: irrationally."
Now I am 100% correct in believing that 2+2=4. There is no need for me to encounter dissent, disagreement or attempts to disprove it. I certainly don't need those things, to strengthen my arguments; I don't believe this on the basis of any arguments, nor do I need any. It is just obvious. Also, I understand the proposition that 2+2=4 as well as possible, even though I have never had to defend this "point of view." And this does this make my belief a prejudice, or irrational.
If we are to defend free speech, as we should, we should not argue that knowledge, rationality, or understanding are impossible without it.
I’m not sure that this necessarily follows (but I’ll happily be proved incorrect…). On the one hand, you may have rather taken the argument to its extremes - almost ad absurdum. The original premise is qualified as ‘unlikely’ so not impossible. On the other, to also take it that direction, might it not be possible that there is a reality, beyond our comprehension, in which the principles of mathematics and logic might differ. I don’t know. Thinking it makes my head hurt. But I think the point stands. There are very few things which are certainties, certainly not in matters of right or wrong.
The question is whether it is okay to censor or punish those who deny or debate some statement S. The third prong of the argument is the case where S is true. The claim is: even if S is true, you still should not censor or punish those who deny or debate it (you "still need free speech"). The argument for this claim seems to be: without this free speech, you cannot know that S is true. But for some true statements S, that's absurd—2+2=4 is just one example, there are others (the earth is round, etc).
You might reply, okay, the argument does not secure free speech about things we know to be true, but no big deal, we know very little. But first, that's a more limited argument for free speech than is desired, and second, it's a mistake to concede that we know very little. We know a ton of things, but should still welcome free and open debate about them. Why? Not because such debate is always needed for knowledge in the first place.
I think what you’re effectively saying is that if you take Mill’s argument to its extremes, then you end up in logical absurdity. E.g. the only reason we know what 2+2 is, is because we can challenge it and that’s the reason for free speech.
For a start, are you guilty of a fallacy by looking at this argument as if presented in a vacuum. There are things we take as self evident now which weren’t seen as self evident in the past. That will happen in the future. We know a lot but, the more we know, the closer we come to the infinite.
More fundamentally, are you making this unnecessarily binary? Does an argument for free speech need be the only argument for free speech or can multiple ideas come together to create a deeper sense of holistic reasoning?
And lastly, even if one accepts that there are statements for which this reasoning is absurd, who becomes the arbiter of that absurdity and how is it regulated?
Isn’t there another layer to Mill’s idea here too which is that by disproving it one effectively proves it at the same time? I.e. the necessity of free speech to refute incorrect ideas?
Well put. Truth is true even if alone in a cave. We stray into the nihilistic realm of "values" proof becomes performative. A truth is a truth without being said (we hold these truths to be self-evident...), a "value" needs an audience, as I am sure Greg is well aware having named his book after Allen Bloom's classic. But the reality is that Truth, in a fallen world, still demands champions.
What if you’re totally wrong about the merits of free speech?
2 points
1. There are 5 words I try to keep in mind. "But..I..Could..Be..Wrong."
2. Just because you/someone is (insert group here) does not prevent you/them from being 1. A Jerk, 2. Dumber Than Dirt, 3. Both
Both your video and Mill’s perspective neglect the importance of religion in our lives. For some questions, there is no truth; there is only what is right and what is wrong, for you, or for your group—a matter of emotions, preferences, religion, education, and differing facts. Our perspectives will differ because we have different facts. The events of October 7 and its aftermath have taught us that right and wrong depend on these facts.
https://open.substack.com/pub/scottgibb/p/we-stand-divided-an-introduction?r=nb3bl&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
And not only facts, but one’s identity and religion.
Mr. Lukianoff - Depending on your view, there are values equally important or more important than truth. The First Amendment isn’t written just with truth in mind; the Founders carefully selected the words “religion” and “freedom of speech.” No mention of truth though! Why not?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
I believe the answer to this question lies in the meaning of education. What is the difference between education and religion in the context of the First Amendment. Please join me in exploring this topic at Trim to Truth.
https://open.substack.com/pub/scottgibb/p/mlk-jr-on-academic-freedom?r=nb3bl&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web