Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought by Jonathan Rauch. Please support local bookstores by by buying the book through this link – for which I get no remuneration. I just like local bookstores. (I consider buying local as a sort of taxation for having nice neighborhoods, like Bay View, WI.)
I would put this in my list of top ten books you need to read. And, it’s a short book, only 163 pages.
How do we find truth in an age of information? This is vital because the economy is based on information – and bad information can harm, if not destroy, the economy. Rauch says there are five approaches that people take to find or argue for the truth:
- The Fundamentalist Approach: God (or some other unassailable authority figure) has given me the truth and I will give it to you. Arguments ensue but unless you are that god or unassailable authority, your arguments are irrelevant.
- The Egalitarian Approach: All sincerely held ideas are of equal value. If I sincerely believe that aliens are among us in the form of Pugs, who are you to doubt me? If I sincerely believe that you are wrong, again, who are you to doubt me because my ideas are as valid as any – and any evidence to the contrary is just as absurd or relevant. This approach quickly goes nowhere.
- The Radical Egalitarian Approach: Because some people have been held out of the discussion, they get first place back in line. This approach is quite often quite popular with those who have either been held out of the line, or didn’t know the line was there.
- The Humanitarian Approach: This can be combined with any of the other approaches, but adds that you must not cause harm with your words. And, the recipient of your words gets to determine how harmful your words are. One sees this used when some protest group says that words are literally violence.
- The Liberal Science Approach: In any argument, no one gets final say and no one gets special status. Even if you have special status, say you’re speaking on behalf of a god, a college president, or you’re a charismatic-type leader of a group, you do not get to win the argument based on those roles – you have to win the argument on the merit of your ideas ands the skills of presentation. And, even if you win the argument today, but someone finds contrary argumentation tomorrow, the argument can begin again. For many this approach is exhausting. We want rest and repose, but what we get is life. In the end, Rauch says that this is the only one that can work.
As this was written back in 1995, there have been others who have approached this question of truth-finding in an age of information, but this is a clear book and it is short. It has stood the test of a few decades to still have validity.
Twice I have bought this book for executives who have found themselves confronted by absurd but popular ideas from members/faculty/students. I thought it might give some long-term insights on how to have an argument with radicals. Sadly, I doubt it had any real effect, or that it was even read.