Articles ยป
     
Dangerous Ideas - Dangerous to air dangerous ideas?
Written by Editor   
Monday, 13 August 2007 03:08
Article Index
Dangerous Ideas
Think about it
Unsettling possibilities
Explore all relevant ideas
Dangerous to air dangerous ideas?
Intolerance of unpopular ideas
All Pages

Dangerous to air dangerous ideas?

In the best Talmudic tradition of arguing a position as forcefully as possible and then switching sides, let me now present the case for discouraging certain lines of intellectual inquiry. Two of the contributors to this volume (Gopnik and Hillis) offer as their "dangerous idea" the exact opposite of Gilbert's: They say that it's a dangerous idea for thinkers to air their dangerous ideas. How might such an argument play out?

First, one can remind people that we are all responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our actions, and that includes the consequences of our public statements. Freedom of inquiry may be an important value, according to this argument, but it is not an absolute value, one that overrides all others. We know that the world is full of malevolent and callous people who will use any pretext to justify their bigotry or destructiveness. We must expect that they will seize on the broaching of a topic that seems in sympathy with their beliefs as a vindication of their agenda.

Not only can the imprimatur of scientific debate add legitimacy to toxic ideas, but the mere act of making an idea common knowledge can change its effects. Individuals, for instance, may harbor a private opinion on differences between genders or among ethnic groups but keep it to themselves because of its opprobrium. But once the opinion is aired in public, they may be emboldened to act on their prejudice -- not just because it has been publicly ratified but because they must anticipate that everyone else will act on the information. Some people, for example, might discriminate against the members of an ethnic group despite having no pejorative opinion about them, in the expectation that their customers or colleagues will have such opinions and that defying them would be costly. And then there are the effects of these debates on the confidence of the members of the stigmatized groups themselves.

Of course, academics can warn against these abuses, but the qualifications and nitpicking they do for a living may not catch up with the simpler formulations that run on swifter legs. Even if they did, their qualifications might be lost on the masses. We shouldn't count on ordinary people to engage in the clear thinking -- some would say the hair-splitting -- that would be needed to accept a dangerous idea but not its terrible consequence. Our overriding precept, in intellectual life as in medicine, should be "First, do no harm."

We must be especially suspicious when the danger in a dangerous idea is to someone other than its advocate. Scientists, scholars and writers are members of a privileged elite. They may have an interest in promulgating ideas that justify their privileges, that blame or make light of society's victims, or that earn them attention for cleverness and iconoclasm. Even if one has little sympathy for the cynical Marxist argument that ideas are always advanced to serve the interest of the ruling class, the ordinary skepticism of a tough-minded intellectual should make one wary of "dangerous" hypotheses that are no skin off the nose of their hypothesizers.

But don't the demands of rationality always compel us to seek the complete truth? Not necessarily. Rational agents often choose to be ignorant. They may decide not to be in a position where they can receive a threat or be exposed to a sensitive secret. They may choose to avoid being asked an incriminating question, where one answer is damaging, another is dishonest and a failure to answer is grounds for the questioner to assume the worst (hence the Fifth Amendment protection against being forced to testify against oneself). Scientists test drugs in double-blind studies in which they keep themselves from knowing who got the drug and who got the placebo, and they referee manuscripts anonymously for the same reason. Many people rationally choose not to know the gender of their unborn child, or whether they carry a gene for Huntington's disease, or whether their nominal father is genetically related to them. Perhaps a similar logic would call for keeping socially harmful information out of the public sphere.



 

Add to Google

Visitors

 »4,822,330
 »186,340
 »1,279
 »184,224
 »5,675
 »1,333
 »3,191
 »810,591
 »5,540
 »21,022
 »30,327
 »100,070
 »1,221
 »82,398
 »21,060
 »75,162
 »53,585
 »24,803
 »3,665
 »10,513
 »3,549
 »27,489
 »1,827
 »13,992
 »15,508
 »14,194
 »2,200
 »41,769
 »17
 »16
 »13,049
 »8,314
 »854
 »65,908
 »12,530
 »43,981
 »5,925
 »979
 »1,583
 »482
 »11,874
 »14,075
 »2,002
 »81
 »14,493
 »13,909
 »569
 »242
 »7,586
 »826
 »11,756
 »1,879
 »12,654
 »691
 »268
 »11,854
 »6,132
 »10,235
 »10,409
 »528
 »1,508
 »9,367
 »119
 »9,385
 »1,257
 »83
 »1,206
 »5,385
 »5,439
 »3,431
 »2,429
 »72
 »1,280
 »917
 »46
 »765
 »71
 »1,028
 »818
 »5,526
 »394
 »12
 »40
 »1,932
 »189
 »260
 »11,789
 »790
 »373
 »45
 »1,723
 »17
 »104
 »326
 »1,538
 »253
 »1,300
 »47
 »19
 »568
 »1,851
 »40
 »136
 »21
 »10
 »136
 »283
 »189
 »17
 »39
 »72
 »1,045
 »29
 »34
 »17
 »244
 »37
 »88
 »705
 »17
 »422
 »75
 »48
 »55
 »278
 »18
 »162
 »40
 »184
 »169
 »146
 »61
 »112
 »11
 »39
 »95
 »50
 »22
 »443
 »5
 »73
 »119
 »75
 »13
 »89
 »23
 »195
 »44
 »40
 »5
 »33
 »16
 »10
 »4
 »27
 »15
 »18
 »2
 »2
 »6
 »2
 »4
 »6
 »2
 »6
 »2
 »2

6,930,687 visitors
0 countries
Get Firefox
Copyright © 1996-2017
All Rights Reserved
Buy Bitcoins!
RocketTheme Joomla Templates