In practice, couldn't this get exhausting and delay many advances in knowledge? If we make progress or establish anything, then we have to go back and debate it simply because some people want to?
Think of the time this takes.
It seems it would also become very arbitrary--some people want to debate. Others do not. They are confident enough that they've arrived at some decent ideas. They offer some evidence against the would-be debaters but why is the burden on them to open up the floor? The ones that want to debate are always expected to carry the day?
I have my doubts that 'they could be right' is why the constitution protects the free speech of Nazis. Seems more likely that they decided to allow public expression of things known to be wrong because it maximizes the neutrality of the state. And that you want that because you know there *will be some things* that are right, and want to limit the temptation by the state to lump those things in with the Nazis. You are merely letting Nazis be a placeholder for that neutrality, in the full awareness that they are wrong.
This was thought reasonable at the time because it was assumed the Nazis would never be taken to be reasonable. If the danger loomed that the Nazis were going to become a thing, other considerations might have come to the fore.
Yes I agree the reasons again the state suppressing speech are different from the reasons against society, or the scientific community, doing so. The demand to be neutral is stronger in the case of the state.
> Look, there’s an apple on the table between us. You and I both believe, and know, that there’s an apple there. It’s not some random guess. Our eyes provide us all the evidence we need.
The interlocutor could have pressed his point. Even with something so obvious or trivial we have some difficulties. Perhaps one or both of them were under the influence of hallucinogens. Perhaps it is a perfect imitation of a fruit. The stakes are low, and we have seen fruit thousands of times. But if your life depended on establishing with very very high probability that it was indeed an apple in front of you, would you not subject it to rigorous falsification tests?
More generally aren't we checking the fidelity of our mind's representation of reality?
> If the stakes were high, maybe I wouldn't know there's an apple there. But they're not, so I do.
This is puzzling. There is no causal link between the stakes and your knowledge. Just that with nothing on the line you are happy with "knowing" its really an apple with 99.999999% certainty (say), but with a pointed loaded gun maybe 1 in 100 million is not a risk you are willing to take.
Knowledge is equally as easy or as hard to have at different stakes. Just that you are more comfortable with the same uncertainty when the stakes are low.
Some statements and claims are meant to intimidate and vilify, and if repeated enough by enough individuals, are intended to exclude entire classes of people from full participation in our society, and sometimes expose entire classes of people to violence.
That this is the case is really not in dispute to anyone who has paid attention to the past eight years, and the past eighty.
The use of speech to intimidate and vilify is not unique to fascists, but it is very much a fundamental feature of their worldview.
This use of speech is inherently inconsistent to maintaining a pluralistic democracy (as opposed to an autocratic apartheid state, which fascists always seek), and is diametrically opposed to the rule of law based on equal justice for all.
In practice, couldn't this get exhausting and delay many advances in knowledge? If we make progress or establish anything, then we have to go back and debate it simply because some people want to?
Think of the time this takes.
It seems it would also become very arbitrary--some people want to debate. Others do not. They are confident enough that they've arrived at some decent ideas. They offer some evidence against the would-be debaters but why is the burden on them to open up the floor? The ones that want to debate are always expected to carry the day?
I have my doubts that 'they could be right' is why the constitution protects the free speech of Nazis. Seems more likely that they decided to allow public expression of things known to be wrong because it maximizes the neutrality of the state. And that you want that because you know there *will be some things* that are right, and want to limit the temptation by the state to lump those things in with the Nazis. You are merely letting Nazis be a placeholder for that neutrality, in the full awareness that they are wrong.
This was thought reasonable at the time because it was assumed the Nazis would never be taken to be reasonable. If the danger loomed that the Nazis were going to become a thing, other considerations might have come to the fore.
Yes I agree the reasons again the state suppressing speech are different from the reasons against society, or the scientific community, doing so. The demand to be neutral is stronger in the case of the state.
> Look, there’s an apple on the table between us. You and I both believe, and know, that there’s an apple there. It’s not some random guess. Our eyes provide us all the evidence we need.
The interlocutor could have pressed his point. Even with something so obvious or trivial we have some difficulties. Perhaps one or both of them were under the influence of hallucinogens. Perhaps it is a perfect imitation of a fruit. The stakes are low, and we have seen fruit thousands of times. But if your life depended on establishing with very very high probability that it was indeed an apple in front of you, would you not subject it to rigorous falsification tests?
More generally aren't we checking the fidelity of our mind's representation of reality?
If I were tripping, I wouldn't know there's an apple there. But I'm not, so I do.
If the stakes were high, maybe I wouldn't know there's an apple there. But they're not, so I do.
"If circumstances were thus-and-so, you would lack knowledge" doesn't show that, as things are (circumstances aren't that way) I lack knowledge.
> If the stakes were high, maybe I wouldn't know there's an apple there. But they're not, so I do.
This is puzzling. There is no causal link between the stakes and your knowledge. Just that with nothing on the line you are happy with "knowing" its really an apple with 99.999999% certainty (say), but with a pointed loaded gun maybe 1 in 100 million is not a risk you are willing to take.
I thought you were the one saying knowledge is harder to have when the stakes are high?
Knowledge is equally as easy or as hard to have at different stakes. Just that you are more comfortable with the same uncertainty when the stakes are low.
Some statements and claims are meant to intimidate and vilify, and if repeated enough by enough individuals, are intended to exclude entire classes of people from full participation in our society, and sometimes expose entire classes of people to violence.
That this is the case is really not in dispute to anyone who has paid attention to the past eight years, and the past eighty.
The use of speech to intimidate and vilify is not unique to fascists, but it is very much a fundamental feature of their worldview.
This use of speech is inherently inconsistent to maintaining a pluralistic democracy (as opposed to an autocratic apartheid state, which fascists always seek), and is diametrically opposed to the rule of law based on equal justice for all.
There's your problem.
I believe in free expression, but also aware the words can kill