On the right to be wrong (in my beliefs)
Note: I'll have to do the Star Wars quote thing in another post.
First, a small nitpick...that, I guess, only philosophy types would care about. From ST Forum (May 25), "THE A*STAR SAGA--Anarchy if people speak without a care for truth" by William Ho Siew Wah (writing in response to Christopher Choo's piece):
But it's getting late; I'll have to come back to this later. And yes, I'll have to come back to the Star Wars quote later as well. Feel free to leave comments in the meantime.
[I've also left the full text of Mr Ho's letter in the comments for reference.]
continued: (May 25 1150 -0400)
Nothing better than a good night's rest to clear the mind...only to notice the typo in the title. In the meantime, WhiteOut, Trowa Evans, lzyData and the Cap'n Intrepid have posted comments on the forum letter. Like them, I do not share Mr Ho's assumption that it must have been AcidFlask who had the facts wrong--we just don't know enough to make a call. The fact that he re-apologised could mean all sorts of things.
more: And I've just noticed that Christopher Choo himself has a response on his blog. He seems rather unperturbed.
interlude:Passages from Universal Declaration of Human Rights
But let me come back to the four questions (1a)(1b)(2a)(2b) raised above. They concern issues in the ballpark of freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. Note that we are not here talking about rights (and duties) in the abstract, but such as are enforcable in the context of the civil polity and the marketplace of ideas by mere human beings.
Let me begin with (1a) and (2a). I believe that only a "yes" answer would be consistent with certain other commitments we have. Consider the various religious doctrines believed by people in Singapore. Now I am talking about the doctrines that make a claim to be factually true--e.g., when Christians confess that "Jesus is the Son of God who through his death upon the cross atoned for the sins of the world, and even now sits upon the right hand of the Father, while His Spirit abides with the elect, or when Muslims believe that "there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His prophet", they are not merely saying something about themselves, but something about the world, something that would either be objectively true or false. Add also the counter-religious claims that some people believe, e.g., the Atheistic one that says: "God--whether of the Christian, Muslim, Jewish or whatnot conception--does not exist."
Now logically speaking, it is impossible that all of these claims can be true--since they logically exclude each other. At best only one set of these claims can be true; in fact, it is even logically possible that none of them are true. What this means is that even right now, there are lots of people in Singapore who believe in falsehoods as far as their religious (and counter-religious) opinions are concerned. Here's the point: the various parties each conscientiously believes that his religious (or counter-religious) opinions are objectively true; even if (unbeknownst to him) those beliefs are objectively false, he still has a right in a free society to have, hold and act upon (or not) those conscientiously-held beliefs as long such is consistent with the exercise of the same right by others. So one is free to hold to, propogate his conscientiously held beliefs, associate with others of like mind, seek to (verbally) dispute those who disagree, etc., even if those beliefs are false sub specie aeternis. Those who hold to beliefs opposed to one have the same rights. Given that we are committed to the freedom of conscience and speech, which are at the bedrock of freedom of religion.
Incidentally, the converse is at the foundation of the Inquisition.
But perhaps that was too easy--obviously the above concerns issues concerning which there is no widespread agreement for which knockdown proofs and arguments are not forthcoming and for which such proofs and arguments are extremely unlikely to be forthcoming (until Kingdom comes). They are the sorts of issues that lie at the heart of the doctrine of the "burdens of judgment". But what about (1b)(2b)? Do we have a right to believe or speak that which is proven false?
In one range of cases, the alleged proofs are only that--alleged. Some Christians believe that they have proofs for the existence of God; some atheists believe that they have proofs for the converse. It is entirely possible that sub specie aeternis, some of those proofs are objectively correct. But here on earth between mere mortals, they are difficult to follow, involve controversial premises, and equally humanly speaking rational people acting in good faith have come to different conclusions about them. We are back in the ball park of the burdens of judgment, only transferred to the level of proofs rather than the beliefs themselves. In this case, the answer for (1b)(2b) will still be "yes", for roughly the same reasons as for (1a)(2a).
Now comes the interesting case: what if the proofs are knockdown, or at the very least, obvious? Suppose someone (sincerely) believes that pi is 3.0 and wishes to propogate that belief. It is at least not obvious to me that he does not have a right to do so, just as others would have a right to disagree with and seek to refute him. If anything, such a person does not so much as flout some duty (and in that sense does not have the right to his belief or to propogate it) as possibly reveal himself to be untaught, or irrational. Now obviously, we wouldn't want to allow such a person to hold a teaching position in mathmatics, or hire him as one of the engineers for the LTA, but that's not exactly something to do with his putative lack of a right to be wrong in his beliefs, so to speak.
Final caveats: even if we grant that the answer to (1a)-(2b) is "yes", it does not follow that these are absolute rights that cannot be trumped or constrained by other rights, e.g., the right not to be slandered. But I'll leave that to another day. And do note that a right to believe that X or even to propogate that belief is not the same as a right to the agreement or belief of someone else that X. If I want to, I can believe that I am the Queen of Sheba and to say so to you. In fact, I even have a right to do so, nutty as it may be. Having you also believe that I am the Queen of Sheba (and to act accordingly) is another story altogether.
Looks like I'll have to do that Star Wars quote thing in another post.
First, a small nitpick...that, I guess, only philosophy types would care about. From ST Forum (May 25), "THE A*STAR SAGA--Anarchy if people speak without a care for truth" by William Ho Siew Wah (writing in response to Christopher Choo's piece):
To me, the issue concerns Mr Chen Jiahao, a former scholar now studying for his PhD, making some potentially libellous remarks on his blog which were not substantiated by facts.Is Mr Ho claiming that (1) Mr Chen's remarks are actually unsubstantiated by facts--and for that reason, potentially libellous; or is he making the more modest claim that (2) Mr Chen's remarks are potentially unsupported by facts and thus (potentially) libellous? While one would have thought that (2) is the safer statement--unless one actually (a) knows which exactly are the posts on caustic.soda that were considered libellous (a piece of information A*Star never revealed to the public) AND (b) have the requisite legal training to tell that they are libellous. Interestingly, that (1) is what is intended is further suggested by a later passage:
Freedom of expression must be accompanied by a responsibility to have your facts correct, and, if they are proven otherwise, to have the maturity to admit you are wrong, make an unreserved apology and move on. It will be total anarchy if we have freedom of speech without the need to speak the truth. Every individual has a right to his opinion, but no individual has a right to be wrong in his facts.Let me first highlight some distinct questions that come out of the passage.
(1a) Do we have a right to believe that which is not true?Now I believe that the answer to all four is "yes". We have--at the very least--a prima facie right to each of the four (that can be trumped by other rights). [edit: so as not to make it too easy for myself, I am talking about such speaking as intended to communicate factual truth--so, saying that "Sherlock Holmes lived in London" does not really count as instances covered by (2a)(2b). Saying, "Sherlock Holmes is a real (non-fictional) person" would be.]
(1b) Do we have a right to believe that which is proven false?
(2a) Do we have a right to speak that which is not true?
(2b) Do we have a right to speak that which is proven false?
But it's getting late; I'll have to come back to this later. And yes, I'll have to come back to the Star Wars quote later as well. Feel free to leave comments in the meantime.
[I've also left the full text of Mr Ho's letter in the comments for reference.]
continued: (May 25 1150 -0400)
Nothing better than a good night's rest to clear the mind...only to notice the typo in the title. In the meantime, WhiteOut, Trowa Evans, lzyData and the Cap'n Intrepid have posted comments on the forum letter. Like them, I do not share Mr Ho's assumption that it must have been AcidFlask who had the facts wrong--we just don't know enough to make a call. The fact that he re-apologised could mean all sorts of things.
more: And I've just noticed that Christopher Choo himself has a response on his blog. He seems rather unperturbed.
interlude:Passages from Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood.still more: Incidentally, I am rather old fashioned when it comes to "truth", that is, I believe that there is such a thing as objective truth. Furthermore, I believe that at some level, talk about "truth from my (or your) perspective" either resolves into much more mundane claims or are incoherent (more on this later). But claims to possess the unadulterated truth by specific individuals and institutions, however, are another thing altogether.
Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this included the right to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
But let me come back to the four questions (1a)(1b)(2a)(2b) raised above. They concern issues in the ballpark of freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. Note that we are not here talking about rights (and duties) in the abstract, but such as are enforcable in the context of the civil polity and the marketplace of ideas by mere human beings.
Let me begin with (1a) and (2a). I believe that only a "yes" answer would be consistent with certain other commitments we have. Consider the various religious doctrines believed by people in Singapore. Now I am talking about the doctrines that make a claim to be factually true--e.g., when Christians confess that "Jesus is the Son of God who through his death upon the cross atoned for the sins of the world, and even now sits upon the right hand of the Father, while His Spirit abides with the elect, or when Muslims believe that "there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His prophet", they are not merely saying something about themselves, but something about the world, something that would either be objectively true or false. Add also the counter-religious claims that some people believe, e.g., the Atheistic one that says: "God--whether of the Christian, Muslim, Jewish or whatnot conception--does not exist."
Now logically speaking, it is impossible that all of these claims can be true--since they logically exclude each other. At best only one set of these claims can be true; in fact, it is even logically possible that none of them are true. What this means is that even right now, there are lots of people in Singapore who believe in falsehoods as far as their religious (and counter-religious) opinions are concerned. Here's the point: the various parties each conscientiously believes that his religious (or counter-religious) opinions are objectively true; even if (unbeknownst to him) those beliefs are objectively false, he still has a right in a free society to have, hold and act upon (or not) those conscientiously-held beliefs as long such is consistent with the exercise of the same right by others. So one is free to hold to, propogate his conscientiously held beliefs, associate with others of like mind, seek to (verbally) dispute those who disagree, etc., even if those beliefs are false sub specie aeternis. Those who hold to beliefs opposed to one have the same rights. Given that we are committed to the freedom of conscience and speech, which are at the bedrock of freedom of religion.
Incidentally, the converse is at the foundation of the Inquisition.
But perhaps that was too easy--obviously the above concerns issues concerning which there is no widespread agreement for which knockdown proofs and arguments are not forthcoming and for which such proofs and arguments are extremely unlikely to be forthcoming (until Kingdom comes). They are the sorts of issues that lie at the heart of the doctrine of the "burdens of judgment". But what about (1b)(2b)? Do we have a right to believe or speak that which is proven false?
In one range of cases, the alleged proofs are only that--alleged. Some Christians believe that they have proofs for the existence of God; some atheists believe that they have proofs for the converse. It is entirely possible that sub specie aeternis, some of those proofs are objectively correct. But here on earth between mere mortals, they are difficult to follow, involve controversial premises, and equally humanly speaking rational people acting in good faith have come to different conclusions about them. We are back in the ball park of the burdens of judgment, only transferred to the level of proofs rather than the beliefs themselves. In this case, the answer for (1b)(2b) will still be "yes", for roughly the same reasons as for (1a)(2a).
Now comes the interesting case: what if the proofs are knockdown, or at the very least, obvious? Suppose someone (sincerely) believes that pi is 3.0 and wishes to propogate that belief. It is at least not obvious to me that he does not have a right to do so, just as others would have a right to disagree with and seek to refute him. If anything, such a person does not so much as flout some duty (and in that sense does not have the right to his belief or to propogate it) as possibly reveal himself to be untaught, or irrational. Now obviously, we wouldn't want to allow such a person to hold a teaching position in mathmatics, or hire him as one of the engineers for the LTA, but that's not exactly something to do with his putative lack of a right to be wrong in his beliefs, so to speak.
Final caveats: even if we grant that the answer to (1a)-(2b) is "yes", it does not follow that these are absolute rights that cannot be trumped or constrained by other rights, e.g., the right not to be slandered. But I'll leave that to another day. And do note that a right to believe that X or even to propogate that belief is not the same as a right to the agreement or belief of someone else that X. If I want to, I can believe that I am the Queen of Sheba and to say so to you. In fact, I even have a right to do so, nutty as it may be. Having you also believe that I am the Queen of Sheba (and to act accordingly) is another story altogether.
Looks like I'll have to do that Star Wars quote thing in another post.
Permalink |
|
| 
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home