Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by branch_c
Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought by Jonathan Rauch
3.0
I agree with much of what Rauch says here, and I applaud him for saying it. In particular, the point that “we must all take seriously the idea that any and all of us might, at any time, be wrong” (p. 45) is a crucial position to take in order to arrive at the truth. Likewise, his assertion that “Respect is no opinion’s birthright” (p. 120) is absolutely correct, and yet far too often ignored, in the interest of civility, as when it’s taken for granted that we should respect each other’s ideas. In fact, ideas don’t deserve respect at all; only people do, and only then until they act in such a way to lose that respect.
Rauch presents the guiding principles that “No one gets the final say” and that “No one has personal authority.” (p. 46), and he’s right; to claim otherwise is to slide down the path toward authoritarianism and illiberal restrictions on speech and even thought. The distinguishing ethic of liberal science is, according to Rauch, “that liberals believe they must check their beliefs, or submit them for checking, however sure they feel.” (p. 92) His advice on what to “do about people who have silly or offensive opinions and who haven’t bothered to submit to the rigors of public checking? Ignore them.” (p. 129) This is exactly the right answer. The purveyors of hatefulness and nonsense want attention more than anything, and they should be completely ignored - including, especially, by the media.
And yet… I do have a few concerns here. First is the fact that Rauch’s primary target is the extreme left and its “wokeness” (although that term wasn’t used in 1993 when this was written). While I’m sympathetic to this, and I certainly hope that those on the far left will read this book and take its criticism seriously, it’s fair to point out that the extreme right has long been far more guilty of the sins described here. The religious autocrats of the irrational right have been behaving this way for centuries, and dealing harshly with any attempt at opposition. Complaining that the pendulum has finally swung to where the left is also venturing into authoritarian territory does not exactly justify the excessive focus on them to the exclusion of the literal authoritarians on the right.
Second, I fear that Rauch puts too much faith in the “critical sorting system” (p. 145) that is supposed to elevate good ideas while allowing bad ones to die. Just as the invisible hand of the free market can’t be counted upon to create an economy that is beneficial to all members of society, neither does free speech absolutism ensure that we are making the world more free. It’s true that we don’t want the government imposing rules on which speech should be allowed, but there is some value in arranging incentives so that the most obnoxious speech is at the very least not rewarded, and should certainly not easily lead to positions of power. When there are so many people who simply refuse to play by the rules of the “science game” and accept the validation or rejection of their opinions by means of rational public debate, there is a real danger that the irrational on either the left or the right can simply take control of government. At that point the system of liberal science can be suppressed, and all the checking in the world won’t help.
And finally, even though we must allow for the possibility that we’re wrong, we nevertheless must act as if we’re right, until proven otherwise. Beliefs translate into public policies that make a real difference in our lives and the lives of others, so if we have good evidence that a conclusion is true, we have no reason to sit back and listen to the nonsense that opponents spew in response. Ignore them, yes, but also take actions that we believe actually make the world a better place, even if it means making laws or policies that might have to be modified later if it turns out that our conclusions were incorrect after all.
Again, I give credit to Rauch for the positions taken in this book, and it’s well worth reading by those of any political stripe. If there’s room to dispute some of the points made here, and I think there is, well then I expect Rauch would support our prerogative to do so.
Rauch presents the guiding principles that “No one gets the final say” and that “No one has personal authority.” (p. 46), and he’s right; to claim otherwise is to slide down the path toward authoritarianism and illiberal restrictions on speech and even thought. The distinguishing ethic of liberal science is, according to Rauch, “that liberals believe they must check their beliefs, or submit them for checking, however sure they feel.” (p. 92) His advice on what to “do about people who have silly or offensive opinions and who haven’t bothered to submit to the rigors of public checking? Ignore them.” (p. 129) This is exactly the right answer. The purveyors of hatefulness and nonsense want attention more than anything, and they should be completely ignored - including, especially, by the media.
And yet… I do have a few concerns here. First is the fact that Rauch’s primary target is the extreme left and its “wokeness” (although that term wasn’t used in 1993 when this was written). While I’m sympathetic to this, and I certainly hope that those on the far left will read this book and take its criticism seriously, it’s fair to point out that the extreme right has long been far more guilty of the sins described here. The religious autocrats of the irrational right have been behaving this way for centuries, and dealing harshly with any attempt at opposition. Complaining that the pendulum has finally swung to where the left is also venturing into authoritarian territory does not exactly justify the excessive focus on them to the exclusion of the literal authoritarians on the right.
Second, I fear that Rauch puts too much faith in the “critical sorting system” (p. 145) that is supposed to elevate good ideas while allowing bad ones to die. Just as the invisible hand of the free market can’t be counted upon to create an economy that is beneficial to all members of society, neither does free speech absolutism ensure that we are making the world more free. It’s true that we don’t want the government imposing rules on which speech should be allowed, but there is some value in arranging incentives so that the most obnoxious speech is at the very least not rewarded, and should certainly not easily lead to positions of power. When there are so many people who simply refuse to play by the rules of the “science game” and accept the validation or rejection of their opinions by means of rational public debate, there is a real danger that the irrational on either the left or the right can simply take control of government. At that point the system of liberal science can be suppressed, and all the checking in the world won’t help.
And finally, even though we must allow for the possibility that we’re wrong, we nevertheless must act as if we’re right, until proven otherwise. Beliefs translate into public policies that make a real difference in our lives and the lives of others, so if we have good evidence that a conclusion is true, we have no reason to sit back and listen to the nonsense that opponents spew in response. Ignore them, yes, but also take actions that we believe actually make the world a better place, even if it means making laws or policies that might have to be modified later if it turns out that our conclusions were incorrect after all.
Again, I give credit to Rauch for the positions taken in this book, and it’s well worth reading by those of any political stripe. If there’s room to dispute some of the points made here, and I think there is, well then I expect Rauch would support our prerogative to do so.