It’s striking how the “gadfly” remains so pertinent even a few thousand years later. This raises questions about whether humanity is truly evolving or simply repeating its past mistakes.
I read a short book years ago called Straw Dogs by the philosopher John Gray (recommended). The thesis is essentially that moral progress is a myth; that while scientific and technological knowledge is cumulative, moral and political gains are fragile and cyclical. I found it depressing at the time, but I've never been able to shake off the thought since.
I agree with every word. And the same principles must apply to MAGA and the cult of Trump. He could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose support. Or try to overturn an election. This is at least as important as the nonsense from the woke leftists, no?
Absolutely – clear thinking must work in all directions if it's to earn the name. I focus on the progressive examples more because they currently have the deepest roots in our institutions while also claiming the moral high ground. I wrote about the problems with the woke right here, if it interests you:
I've come back to it many times over the year but this one is probably a good introduction, and it highlights why autism is such a good fit to the DEI agenda (and I wish that it wasn't!)
I want to explore this a bit, if I may. You state: " Serious disagreement requires knowing what would prove you wrong. A skeptic of paediatric gender medicine might say: “If long-term evidence shows conclusively that affirmation-only care produces better outcomes, then I would immediately reassess my position”. "
There is literally no organization existing in the world today that could conduct a study of this type that I would trust. Furthermore, some things are immoral regardless of outcome. Executing all repeat felons would lead to better crime outcomes but is wrong for other reasons. Performing elective surgeries on children, regardless of "better outcomes" is wrong because children do not have agency and it's clear that parents who assent to such things for their children have reasons of their own for doing so.
I agree with your overall thesis and can think of a wide variety of things that I believe that I am willing to reexamine and change my mind about (economic systems, proper education of children, universal basic income, environmental regulations) and a wide variety that I have thought about and have come to conclusions that are firm (importance of fathers, transgender surgeries for children, right to keep and bear arms).
That’s a fair point. Maybe two things to separate out.
First, if no body of evidence can be trusted, the claim moves out of the empirical realm and into the values one. That’s fine, but it changes the nature of the argument.
Relatedly, some questions are primarily moral rather than outcome-based – the “what would change your mind?” test isn’t about data so much as the moral principle at stake. Also, unlike the falsifiability question, it's more about intellectual openness than testing a claim.
I'm going to close the comments now. Thanks for the interesting comment.
It’s striking how the “gadfly” remains so pertinent even a few thousand years later. This raises questions about whether humanity is truly evolving or simply repeating its past mistakes.
I read a short book years ago called Straw Dogs by the philosopher John Gray (recommended). The thesis is essentially that moral progress is a myth; that while scientific and technological knowledge is cumulative, moral and political gains are fragile and cyclical. I found it depressing at the time, but I've never been able to shake off the thought since.
John Gray is based.
I agree with every word. And the same principles must apply to MAGA and the cult of Trump. He could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose support. Or try to overturn an election. This is at least as important as the nonsense from the woke leftists, no?
Absolutely – clear thinking must work in all directions if it's to earn the name. I focus on the progressive examples more because they currently have the deepest roots in our institutions while also claiming the moral high ground. I wrote about the problems with the woke right here, if it interests you:
https://www.gadflynotes.com/p/how-the-right-went-woke
I'm going to close the comments now. Thanks for reading.
The autism/neurodiversity discourse is a perfect example for you. I write about the psychobabble on my substack. It is designed to confuse.
I've subscribed – interested to know more. Can you suggest an article to start with? Feel free to share a link here.
I've come back to it many times over the year but this one is probably a good introduction, and it highlights why autism is such a good fit to the DEI agenda (and I wish that it wasn't!)
https://theautismtribune.substack.com/p/psychobabble-and-the-psychosis-of
Thanks, I'll take a look.
I want to explore this a bit, if I may. You state: " Serious disagreement requires knowing what would prove you wrong. A skeptic of paediatric gender medicine might say: “If long-term evidence shows conclusively that affirmation-only care produces better outcomes, then I would immediately reassess my position”. "
There is literally no organization existing in the world today that could conduct a study of this type that I would trust. Furthermore, some things are immoral regardless of outcome. Executing all repeat felons would lead to better crime outcomes but is wrong for other reasons. Performing elective surgeries on children, regardless of "better outcomes" is wrong because children do not have agency and it's clear that parents who assent to such things for their children have reasons of their own for doing so.
I agree with your overall thesis and can think of a wide variety of things that I believe that I am willing to reexamine and change my mind about (economic systems, proper education of children, universal basic income, environmental regulations) and a wide variety that I have thought about and have come to conclusions that are firm (importance of fathers, transgender surgeries for children, right to keep and bear arms).
Thoughts?
That’s a fair point. Maybe two things to separate out.
First, if no body of evidence can be trusted, the claim moves out of the empirical realm and into the values one. That’s fine, but it changes the nature of the argument.
Relatedly, some questions are primarily moral rather than outcome-based – the “what would change your mind?” test isn’t about data so much as the moral principle at stake. Also, unlike the falsifiability question, it's more about intellectual openness than testing a claim.
I'm going to close the comments now. Thanks for the interesting comment.