If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is; that is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
It's that last sentence that I found particularly interesting. The first example that came to mind was of the debate between those who accept evolution and those who believe in a religious version of creation. Does it strengthen the position of a true viewpoint to be tested against a falsehood rather than avoiding the debate? I know Richard Dawkins refuses to debate creationists because it is not possible to hold a sensible debate based on evidence and reasoned argument against someone who doesn't play by the same rules of evidence and reason. After hearing 'debates' between biologists and creationists who refuse to accept the existence of transitional fossils I can see his point.
I'm wondering if the nature of public debate was really different in Mill's time or whether he was only involved in debates with other educated people. The problem these days is that you don't have to have any understanding of a subject or hold any evidence in order to put your case to a mass audience. Witness the case of the MMR scare where one dodgy study put one side of the case, but there was an overwhelming number of studies that showed the opposite. If you just looked at the mass media, the simple fact that there were two sides to the argument was treated as if both sides were of equal merit. This story just won't go away, Americans are now getting 'advice' on the safety of vaccines from those bastions of the medical profession, Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey, on Oprah.
Was Mills correct that debate between two opposing positions - 'true' and 'false' is a benefit to the side of the truth? Or have we got to a point in society today where the lack of critical thinking and the persuasiveness of the mass media means that 'truth' doesn't mean anything and that any point of view that is put forward on TV must automatically be valid? Also, there doesn't seem to be any real argument - everyone's position is equal, so there is never any reason to be persuaded to change your mind. Without trying to sound like a Monty Python sketch, there's more to an argument than saying 'No, it isn't'.
Was there ever a golden age of civilized debate when, to win an argument, it was enough just to be right?
Very interesting in a deep and philosophical way, and I read it on the internet, so it MUST be true!
ReplyDeleteIn Conclusion: If a man is in the woods all alone, miles from anywhere, with no women for miles around; is he still wrong???
Simon,
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting post. And interesting link to the Dawkins post (I'll have to read it soon, but I think I already agree with him without hearing his reasons).
"The problem these days is that you don’t have to have any understanding of a subject or hold any evidence in order to put your case to a mass audience."
I agree that this is a problem. Knowledge validation is being challenged because of the new media platform. I do think the challenge is important because it helps us collectively redefine what knowledge is.
-Adam
I was thinking about this subject again during the US election season when Proposition 8 was discussed. As well as the voting options for 'yes' and 'no', there should also be 'this does not affect me, so I shouldn't be involved in the decision-making process". For other polls or votes you could have "I know nothing about this subject, so I shouldn't be allowed to vote on this"
ReplyDelete