Imagine there was an organization entitled Committee for Open Debate on History. Would applying the heuristic quoted below lead one to infer the opponents of Committee for Open Debate on History are likely to be factually wrong about history?
> The truth usually comes off better in open debate. So if your position is correct, you should probably want there to be an open debate; if your position is wrong, you should probably avoid open debate. Therefore, if you see a controversy in which one side is trying to stifle debate while the other welcomes open debate, you can make an inference about who is most likely right.
It certainly is suspicious that many people support bans on the topic. However, there are many countries where it is perfectly legal to discuss (e.g. USA, Denmark, Spain).
Makes sense. I dare say that the literature I am most familiar with - economics - broadly respects the criteria of truthfulness suggested by the authors: in particular, economists are notorious for qualifying their judgments and their standards for treating data are better than most. A problem arises when one has to rely on ‘facts’ established by other disciplines: eg, when discussing the economic implications of climate change economists will inevitably have to rely on the facts’ established by climate scientists. A related problem is that of experts imparting their views way beyond their field of expertise: eg trust Paul Krugman on international trade, much less on US politics.
Substack is a great place to find reliable public intellectuals like this. Arnold Kling’s Substack is often how I find my way to them because he reads lots more than I can and quotes enticing snippets on his Substack, with the intent that you actually go read the whole thing. He himself rates well on Huemer’s criteria (along with Huemer himself and people like Scott Alexander).
I'm intrigued about the section on global warming, because that's one of the most likely areas where he's going to be wrong, since he's coming from an anti-progressive perspective. From the quotes, the author seems to be saying that the scientific literature on the subject is less reliable than surveys because of supposed bias in the former, but I doubt the author actually demonstrates that, and no, a few quotes from hacked emails from climate scientists don't come close to clearing the evidence bar here. Intuitively, the scientific literature should be treated more seriously than surveys, because the literature is where the scientific work actually appears, whereas anyone can make any guesses in a survey, so in order for the literature to be less reliable than surveys, the literature needs to be excluding a significant amount of quality work that if accepted would change things, and again, I doubt the book demonstrates that.
I'm also curious about how large a majority in favor of global warming are being produced in these surveys, and I'm especially curious about who is being surveyed. If a survey is not restricted to published scientists in the field, and includes anyone who studied geology or geography at university, then obviously that survey should be dismissed as being relevant to anything. Imagine doing a survey about whether IQ differences between racial/ethnic groups have a genetic component, but including in that survey everyone who studied biology at university. A survey of elite physicists would be much more informative than a survey of random people who studied geography, since elite physicists are capable of understanding the physical processes that cause global warming.
Also, the idea that truth comes off better in open debate is frankly silly. Humans are not truth seekers, humans form their opinions based on tribe, emotions, and all sorts of other biases. There are ideas on both the left and the right that have grown despite being utterly ridiculous. The other issue here is what exactly winning a debate means. Sometimes, even if you are confident that your idea or arguments will gain majority support because they are better than your opponents’, you still may not want a minority to be convinced otherwise, and there is always a minority willing to believe anything. You can never expect to win a debate by convincing 99% of people that you are right, and on certain topics, your opposition may only need a minority to achieve whatever their goals are.
I like Emil's list of Huemer's nine points that should help to decide who to listen to when there isn't time to become independently well informed.
However, I don't expect real time verbal debates to be a reliable indicator of truth. A skilled debater can win a timed debate by being more practiced and able to state their fallacies more fluently than their opponent, or by demanding presuppositions be built into the agreed upon debate topic before it starts. Richard Carrier lost a debate with a Christian apologist (Craig?) to the latter strategy, IIRC. If the debate is written and untimed, and the topic contains no presuppositions I have doubts about, those problems are solved.
Imagine there was an organization entitled Committee for Open Debate on History. Would applying the heuristic quoted below lead one to infer the opponents of Committee for Open Debate on History are likely to be factually wrong about history?
> The truth usually comes off better in open debate. So if your position is correct, you should probably want there to be an open debate; if your position is wrong, you should probably avoid open debate. Therefore, if you see a controversy in which one side is trying to stifle debate while the other welcomes open debate, you can make an inference about who is most likely right.
It certainly is suspicious that many people support bans on the topic. However, there are many countries where it is perfectly legal to discuss (e.g. USA, Denmark, Spain).
I'm a fan. But think Chauvin was innocent.
Excellent. I wrote three posts about specific tenets of Wokeism, but hey: the subject needs a whole book!
Great review, thank you Emil!
Makes sense. I dare say that the literature I am most familiar with - economics - broadly respects the criteria of truthfulness suggested by the authors: in particular, economists are notorious for qualifying their judgments and their standards for treating data are better than most. A problem arises when one has to rely on ‘facts’ established by other disciplines: eg, when discussing the economic implications of climate change economists will inevitably have to rely on the facts’ established by climate scientists. A related problem is that of experts imparting their views way beyond their field of expertise: eg trust Paul Krugman on international trade, much less on US politics.
Agreed; Mr Krugman should have to live with his facsimile machine as punishment for his predictions about the internet. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/paul-krugman-internets-effect-economy/
Rotary fax machine
K. Now I have to read it 🥸
Substack is a great place to find reliable public intellectuals like this. Arnold Kling’s Substack is often how I find my way to them because he reads lots more than I can and quotes enticing snippets on his Substack, with the intent that you actually go read the whole thing. He himself rates well on Huemer’s criteria (along with Huemer himself and people like Scott Alexander).
I'm intrigued about the section on global warming, because that's one of the most likely areas where he's going to be wrong, since he's coming from an anti-progressive perspective. From the quotes, the author seems to be saying that the scientific literature on the subject is less reliable than surveys because of supposed bias in the former, but I doubt the author actually demonstrates that, and no, a few quotes from hacked emails from climate scientists don't come close to clearing the evidence bar here. Intuitively, the scientific literature should be treated more seriously than surveys, because the literature is where the scientific work actually appears, whereas anyone can make any guesses in a survey, so in order for the literature to be less reliable than surveys, the literature needs to be excluding a significant amount of quality work that if accepted would change things, and again, I doubt the book demonstrates that.
I'm also curious about how large a majority in favor of global warming are being produced in these surveys, and I'm especially curious about who is being surveyed. If a survey is not restricted to published scientists in the field, and includes anyone who studied geology or geography at university, then obviously that survey should be dismissed as being relevant to anything. Imagine doing a survey about whether IQ differences between racial/ethnic groups have a genetic component, but including in that survey everyone who studied biology at university. A survey of elite physicists would be much more informative than a survey of random people who studied geography, since elite physicists are capable of understanding the physical processes that cause global warming.
Also, the idea that truth comes off better in open debate is frankly silly. Humans are not truth seekers, humans form their opinions based on tribe, emotions, and all sorts of other biases. There are ideas on both the left and the right that have grown despite being utterly ridiculous. The other issue here is what exactly winning a debate means. Sometimes, even if you are confident that your idea or arguments will gain majority support because they are better than your opponents’, you still may not want a minority to be convinced otherwise, and there is always a minority willing to believe anything. You can never expect to win a debate by convincing 99% of people that you are right, and on certain topics, your opposition may only need a minority to achieve whatever their goals are.
If you wanted to know stuff, you would know it.
E.g. knowing that credentialism doesn't matter much. You choose not to know this.
This might be a bit off topic but what's your opinion on this https://sites.tufts.edu/cooperativeelectionstudy/2024/04/09/do-conservatives-really-have-better-mental-health-perhaps-not/
The Kindle version is on Amazon as of 2025-01-01. This is likely to have a free sample. I find that Kindle free samples are usually worth reading to make an informed decision about buying a book. https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B0DR3J77CF/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr=
I like Emil's list of Huemer's nine points that should help to decide who to listen to when there isn't time to become independently well informed.
However, I don't expect real time verbal debates to be a reliable indicator of truth. A skilled debater can win a timed debate by being more practiced and able to state their fallacies more fluently than their opponent, or by demanding presuppositions be built into the agreed upon debate topic before it starts. Richard Carrier lost a debate with a Christian apologist (Craig?) to the latter strategy, IIRC. If the debate is written and untimed, and the topic contains no presuppositions I have doubts about, those problems are solved.
Referring to these as 'myths' is still quite charitable.
It's time to start calling these what they are - a bunch of hoaxes, conspiracy theories and mis- and disinformation campaigns.
The fact that they are motivated (partly) by compassion doesn't excuse the lies and the dysfunction they create.