On Censorship - Quareness Series 151st "Lecture".
Many people have pointed out that free speech isn't just for those we agree with but also about defending the right to such of those with whom we disagree. It's also been often stated that censorship almost always creates more damage than whatever's being censored would've caused. Yet somehow we've now arrived at a point in our history where sharing any non-sanctioned information is quickly labelled a cardinal sin with those deemed guilty needing to be "set straight" and "rehabilitated".
In accepting the notion of dis/misinformation we may automatically buy into the notion that there's only one truth and facts which "speak for themselves". However, it's perfectly reasonable to regard facts as impartial and always having to be interpreted...to avoid being without context they have to be woven into a narrative. And it's very possible for different people, acting in good faith, to look at the exact same facts and come up with very different narratives.
In real life we humans hardly ever make decisions based solely on facts or data. Our conclusions and interpretations are subject to cognitive distortions such as availability, confirmation and hindsight biases, and we mostly tend to see what we expect to see. Multiple "readings" of the same data may be confusing but nevertheless conscious awareness of such is ultimately more likely a good thing.
Buying into the notion that there is just one clear-cut truth without nuance or consideration of alternate perspectives is inherently problematic e.g. who decides what the "truth" is going to be and for long it's going to be true. History has repeatedly shown that much of what we now think is absolutely true in respect of many issues is unlikely to remain so in the future. And the cost of silencing dissident voices has usually been greater than whatever damage could have been done by those expressing ideas that officialdom didn't like or agree with.
With any idea of a "truth police" somebody's got to make the decisions on what constitutes wrong or misleading information. But why do we need a "truth police" at all? Surely it's better for long term community cohesion and personal development to be able to hear all reasoned points of view on any subject, to freely read up on things and trust ourselves to make our own judgments? Indeed it might also be better to arrive at our opinions without being overly attached to our own tribe's version of the truth. And it could be beneficial to hold our positions on matters in a manner that allows us to modify them when new data and interpretations present themselves.
We could go so far as to say this is how real science actually works...a practice of questioning things and constantly offering alternative hypotheses to "accepted wisdom" for testing. Such questioning is how we grow our knowledge in the first place and we can't do that if we silence the questioners. It's probably far better for each of us to have the opportunity to decide for ourselves what makes sense and what doesn't.
Specialisation, that seemingly fundamental tenet of our modern societies, effectively becomes fragmentation and even disintegration when taken to extremes. When everyone deals in fragments, no one sees the whole picture. The word "health" for example is rooted in the idea of wholeness but orthodox medical practice in effect mostly carves the body into regions of specialities. Nowadays it is continually being drummed into us that we must trust the experts. However, each time we blindly trust an expert is a time we are not examining the facts ourselves. Expertise can just as easily be used to confuse and deceive the public as to serve us. In order to offset this inbuilt dichotomy we have need of some counterbalance such as a completely open arena of ideas with no concept of "harmful disinformation" warranting censorship. At the end of the day we all have to accept responsibility for our own choices and decisions...such is the price we must pay for freedom.
Sean.
Dean of Quareness.
October, 2021.