Edit: For clarification: I am not necessarily talking about the network Freethought Blogs (FTB). I am talking about any blog that wishes to promote freethought.
Edit: Kylie Sturgess of FTB posted a response to me at http://freethoughtblogs.com/tokenskeptic/2012/07/08/on-advice-for-a-freethought-blog-by-notung. She raises good points relating to FTB as a network.
Advice for a ‘Freethought Blog’
What is ‘freethought’, and why might we want to be a ‘freethinker’? Freethought is a reason-based approach to forming beliefs about the world, and a respect for scientific inquiry. It is productive; when we employ reason when assessing claims, or test hypotheses using the scientific method we tend to get useful results. There are other reasons for preferring the freethinking approach but for my purposes I need not worry about them here.
The opposite of freethought is dogma. We want to oppose dogma for a variety of reasons, of which I will just provide two (from Mill’s On Liberty). Firstly we are fallible beings, and if we do not allow our beliefs to be challenged we can never really be sure that they are the correct ones. Secondly, even if the belief happens to be true, granting it the status of dogma avoids a ‘collision with error’ (as Mill puts it). This collision allows us to see the weak points in our position in order to refine it appropriately. It encourages us to learn how to defend our position, and develop a stronger understanding of why what we believe is true.
So what would a ‘freethought blog’ look like? If it is to warrant the name, it would surely practise and promote the approach outlined above, putting reason before all else. It does not matter necessarily what conclusions one is led to by this approach, but rather that the posts one writes attempt to shake off received wisdom and dogma, and endeavour to replace it with a freethinking methodology. A freethought blog would encourage rational discourse in the comments, where arguments are challenged robustly and reasonably, and all opinions live or die by the quality of the reasoning that leads to them.
So I propose what I will call the Principle of Rational Discourse, which will take two forms; one weak, one strong.
The Weak Principle (wPRD):
Stick to the arguments and remain civil.
If we do not stick to the arguments but instead prefer to attack opponents personally, we distract the conversation with irrelevancies. Furthermore, if you or your opponent get needlessly riled up, then emotion takes the place of reason and the quality of the arguments diminishes. There is no good reason not to be civil. If the arguments are poor, then the surest way of demonstrating this is with a reasoned rebuttal, rather than with invective. If they are ‘trolling’, i.e. posting comments of little substance merely to anger people, then they may be justly blocked from commenting in order to prevent the discussion from breaking down and suffering a catastrophic loss of productivity.
The Strong Principle (sPRD):
Concentrate your arguments against the strongest objections to your view.
I call this a ‘strong’ principle since rather than simply granting dissent negative liberty, it involves treating dissent as a positive good. Those who hold a genuine desire to discover the truth always seek out the strongest objections to their position. We must (if we are to obey this principle) be sure to present our opponent’s arguments in their most favourable light, and employ what is known as the ‘principle of charity’. Why should we do this? Suppose somebody makes an argument that you find prima facie ridiculous. Now consider two possibilities: the first is that we have misunderstood their case and end up unintentionally weakening their argument, and the second is that we understood their argument perfectly, but they are a poor reasoner and so their claims are easy to refute. In the former case, we have misrepresented our opponent’s argument and made it easier for us to knock down (this is known as a ‘straw man fallacy’). In the latter case, all we may achieve is that we ‘win’ the argument, and what good does that do? Would it not be preferable to see whether your beliefs withstand a more robust challenge? Thinking in this way can be a learning experience, even if your beliefs remain standing at the end. We gain more of an understanding of our views by examining them in great detail; holding them up to the light to reveal any imperfections, no matter how small. It seems then that the best way to deal with such a situation is to find the interpretation that provides you with the strongest challenge. I would go so far as to say we should help our opponent out – show them how their argument can be improved. As well as being a nice gesture, it demonstrates the sort of intellectual honesty essential for freethought.
My Suggestion
I propose that a ‘freethought blog’ ought to employ wPRD at the very least. However, it seems to me that a blog that is engaged in a disinterested search for the truth should also employ sPRD. We want to be proven wrong. One of my friends at CERN once said that he hoped that they never found the Higgs Boson, since the idea that their current understanding of particle physics was mistaken was a much more exciting prospect than obtaining data that simply confirmed what they already knew. Being wrong is a chance to learn something new about about ourselves, about each other, about the world. We should embrace that – for freethinkers, nothing is sacred.
Some Examples
Name-calling, threats, insults, sarcasm, invective and speculations as to the agenda of a commenter all violate wPRD.
If you are a prominent skeptic leader who recounts an experience and makes a particular moral claim, and then a well-known colleague takes issue with that claim in a way you dislike, try to understand what they mean and what they are arguing. Interpret their argument so that it is as strong as possible (sPRD). Note the points of agreement and the points of disagreement. Ask for clarification if you are not sure. Any examination of their personal characteristics is a waste of time at best (and an ad hominem fallacy at worst), and would violate wPRD. Outline precisely and efficiently why you do not find their objection sound, and await their response to your arguments. That way, a productive discussion might get going, and you may end up convincing many more people than otherwise.
If you are blogging about an issue you are genuinely concerned about, and a skeptic leader raises the idea that the way the issue is being framed might actually be contributing to that issue, then you have two main choices; a rational discussion, or an attack on the skeptic leader. In the former case, the common ground will be more apparent, the differences can be worked out as best as is possible and there is a much greater chance that the issue gets solved to everybody’s satisfaction. In the latter case, you may actually stifle the discussion, and the issue is much more likely to linger and cause more harm that it would have otherwise. It is clear that those who are serious about the issue and not simply seeking drama should prefer the former option.
In Closing
My advice is intended to be constructive. Comments are welcome and appreciated. Disagreement is encouraged. Please keep all comments civil.
oh pretty good advice….and I doubt it will be taken but I hope it will!
If you read the rules that PZ sets for his blog you’ll understand that he is not interested in “freethought” but only in giving his own ideas (commandments?) air-time and room for his disgusting horde to denigrate absolutely anyone they can and as much as they can.
Ed Brayton is a self-confessed “asshole activist” and this, it seems, is the way he would like to be remembered.
Now, I have no idea where all of you are from but plenty of us in the secular-humanist movement do not live in the USA and, simply, do not subscribe to the “debating techniques” of the garden variety Yank.
Frankly, we (the more civilized among us) find “freethought” blogs and their garden party rather reprehensible. And I’m sure many of us are voting with our feet and Ed/PZ can see this in their StatCounter.
They may increase the size of the echo-chamber with their shenanigans but they will decrease its reach.
^ this
Plenty of us who live in the USA do not subscribe to these techniques either. Lawyers (who are frequently considered the lowest of a low) are prohibited by the Rules of Ethical Conduct from doing any of these things when advancing an argument while practicing law. And frankly, it reflects poorly on us when we do it elsewhere, too.
Actually, our stats are doing better than ever, I suspect.
Thanks for your post.
I suspect you were replying to the commenter above – ‘shazam’ – but just in case: I don’t pretend that my principles will necessarily improve traffic. In fact, I would guess that the opposite is true.
By the way, thanks for your response to this post on your blog.
Perhaps so – but are stats evidence of support, controversy, or perhaps something else?
Remember, it is not the number of eyeballs that determines whether you are successful in making a rational point, but the rationality of the point itself.
FreeThoughtBlogs have gotten a lot of criticism lately, and while some of it has been less than rational, some has hit the point straight on.
FTB has undergone a metamorphosis lately, and it is not for the better, I’m afraid. GroupThink is becoming stronger, with a pronounced disability to *listen*.
Let us hope it does not apply to all bloggers there, and that at least some will find that rational thinking is, at the end of the day, the best thinking.
And act accordingly.
I’m afraid the only way to do so at this point is by leaving. By staying, you are implicitly supporting the behavior of the worst of the worst.
Not at all. By removing yourself from the debate, you are not removing your support, only the possibility of presenting your own views and, perhaps, influence or even change someone’s mind.
It is precisely this “if you stay, you are supporting them” mindset that fosters groupthink and trenchdigging. If we only spoke with those we agree with, we would never hear things that might change our minds – and vice versa.
You *suspect*?
Popularity does not indicate correctness. It doesn’t necessarily last, either. The backlash against FtB is growing, and for very sound reasons.
You “suspect”? And fundamentalists Christians suspect that Jesus will return soon. Great argument you’ve made there.
I don’t think Kylie was making any kind of argument or assertion. Perhaps she’s heard that it’s doing well but hasn’t checked herself. I don’t have a problem with that – in fact I also ‘suspect’ that the stats are doing well.
Yes, creating drama out of nothing and running a Jerry Springer-style network will increase traffic. What it fails to increase is integrity, progress, and freethought. BTW, I don’t know if this applies to your blog specifically since I haven’t read it, but the names I’ve seen you called by your colleagues and their commentariat shocked me, and I’m not that easily shocked. But you’re right, it’s the extremely nasty blogs that managed to get my attention (and according to sources, they make the most money, as well).
[...] in short, I only have a little time to respond to the anonymous “Notung”. Who has some advice for “A FreeThought [...]
[...] Over here, “Notung” has an interesting article on the standards that bloggers might try to live up to if purporting to run something like a “freethought blog”. I think the same issues arise more widely with anything that has pretensions as a philosophy blog. [...]
Good post, Notung, and good advice for a blog that is trying to promote a ‘freethought’ philosophy. Similar advice for skeptics (thought not specfically relating to blogging) was spelled out in a post on the Skepticism & Ethics blog.
But I think the popularization of freethought, taking it from a largely academic/philosophical movement to a popular/political movement, makes it difficult to uphold these standards, particularly on the Internet.
One reason is that among the broader populace, the intellectual rigor you’re promoting gets watered down. It’s not that people, generally, are incapable of understanding the principles, but it does take some investment of time and effort to really understand and apply them at the level you’re describing. So some simplification happens, leading to people identifying as ‘freethinkers’ who have at best an incomplete understanding of what that word means.
Second, there is a fundamental difference between philosophical discourse and political discourse. The objective of a political movement is not the pursuit of truth, but to gain as many followers/supporters of a cause as possible to achieve some political or social goal. It doesn’t really matter how that support is obtained, so it’s far more expedient to dispense with critical thinking, and often, facts. A recent post on Talking Philosophy has a good description of this problem.
Third, the Internet as a medium is less than ideal for practicing the reasoned discourse you describe. A blog’s success is measured by its popularity and the frequency of visits by its audience. Most people don’t have hours to spend reading blog posts, so bloggers tend more towards emphasizing quantity over quality in their posts. In addition, sensationalism is far more attractive than detailed, nuanced approaches to questions. And to build up a loyal fan base that will come back again and again, there is pressure to simply confirm their existing biases, rather than challenge them. There is similar pressure on commenters, to provide immediate reactions instead of well-thought-out responses (which take time and may cause one to miss out on being part of the conversation), to stay brief (since lengthy comments tend not to get read), and to confirm, rather than challenge, the blogger (so as to feel part of the blogger’s community). I’m not saying that any of these pressures can’t be overcome, just that the structure of social media, combined with human psychology, tends to favor fan club building over truth-seeking.
Finally, just because a blogger is a freethinker (or purports to be a freethinker), doesn’t necessarily mean that his or her blog is intended to promote freethought. It may be unfortunate that your expectations get set by the label ‘freethought’ being used as part of the blog’s name, but that’s more of a truth-in-advertising problem than anything else. If the blogger values a particular cause more highly, they may well dispense with the principles of freethought because they feel they are justified in doing so. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, as long as they recognize that they are doing so. A similar point, but relating to skepticism, can be found in this blog post.
tl;dr – These are good ideals, but not necessarily easy to implement.
Thanks – I agree completely with everything you said.
I share your pessimism to an extent – and I don’t pretend that it’s easy or even possible to follow these principles (I’m sure there are many occasions where I have violated at least sPRD). I suppose all we can hope for is that we try to get as close to them as possible. Some will succeed more than others, of course.
“Pessimist” is what an optimist calls a realist.
I agree that we should try.
Reblogged this on Prepared for the Worst and commented:
Agreed.
Yeah, we know you’re talking about FtB, dude. And you’re dead right to, too. Nice piece.
From the comments here and elsewhere, it’s very clear everyone reads this as about Freethought blogs. Vagueness isn’t much help and detracts from your overall message, I think.
I’m talking about any blog that considers itself a ‘freethought’ blog. I’m not saying “there’s a blog out there that needs to do this but I’m not going to say which one”. I’m saying that (in my opinion) all ‘freethought’ blogs should try to promote rational discussion. I don’t think that’s vague at all.
See comment above mine. And others on Facebook, et al…
Thoughtful blog Notung. I was going to write something myself along these lines but this more or less covers it. The surrounding debate has taken on a life of its own and eclipsed any hope of interesting, dispasssionate discussion of the core issues (the nature and scale of harrassment and policing thereof). Its just become a bunfight.
[...] Comments « Advice for a ‘Freethought Blog’ [...]
Ah! But what if that is not the primary goal, nor even a major goal, of the journalist?
Some may care more for robustly disseminating unvarnished reality, and to hell with those who feel alienated by that stance, or the fainting couch brigade.
(Ala Hitchens, or Penn Gillette)
Do you amend your advice based on that completely unrepresented category of free thought blog?
If that’s their primary goal then it makes sense for them to do that. I just think that you run the risk of dogma entering your thinking if you don’t engage with the other side.
Advocate for the Devil here, m’lud.
Does one ‘run the risk of dogma’ by not politely engaging with Creationists, Scientologists, Islamic Terrorists, Moon Hoaxers, Flat Earthers, etc?
Your above 2 scenarios almost insist upon this.
But every-one has limited resources, and must rule a line somewhere, and be blunt and dismissive to at least one group of crazies.
How, exactly, does this dismissal of crazies and proven liars “run the risk of dogma”?
Does one have to engage with Islamic lunatics to avoid running the risk of becoming dogmatic?
That’s a good point MKG.
I think ignoring certain arguments/people is ok, if the conditions you give are met. What I don’t think is good is keep on attacking them fallaciously or impolitely. Nothing is gained by repeated comments calling person X an ‘asshat’ or claiming that they’re ‘arguing from privilege’, or saying that they’re a proven liar.
If you don’t want to engage, then make that clear and move on. If they continually harass you about it, I think you are justified in blocking them.
However, if a ‘proven liar’ makes an argument that isn’t itself a lie, then I don’t see why you shouldn’t just argue against that argument. It doesn’t matter who makes the argument, as it could have been made by someone who isn’t a proven liar.
Of course, if the arguments are time-wastingly terrible, then there’s no point engaging with them. If that’s your decision then state your reasons why, and move on. Don’t pile-on a la FTB.
I think someone like Richard Dawkins is a good role model for this. He doesn’t continually mock the crazies. He just states why he is dismissing and ignoring them and moves on. If there is an argument to address, he tends to address it properly (and politely, I think).
Do you think that sounds reasonable?
[...] article Advice for a ‘Freethought Blog’ by Notung is worth a read. Rate this:Share this:EmailLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. [...]
>Name-calling, threats, insults, sarcasm, invective and speculations as to the agenda of a commenter all violate wPRD
Couple of quick thoughts:
* Ad hominem attacks are usually irrelevant, but is this always the case? For instance, in a history context, is there anything wrong with raising questions about reliability of sources? In a legal context, is there anything wrong with raising questions about character of witnesses?
There was a recent scandal involving a Harvard professor who fabricated results in at least some of his papers. Well, is it irrelevant to remark upon this when considering his conclusions in other papers where fabrication is yet unproven?
* Is the agenda of a speaker always irrelevant? I’d want to make the claim that when anyone speaks, we think about where they’re coming from — because there is no such thing as words out of context, and because context is necessary to understand words.
When one reads dialogue in a novel, doesn’t one naturally think about what it means for that character to say those words — that it comes out of the mouth of a five-year-old girl, or a dragon, or God?
Is the author really as dead as people once claimed?
* Is it necesarily desirable to write dispassionately about Nazism or the Holocaust? Emotion can cloud things, certainly, and can derail debate. But I wonder if there is something missing when you try to remove it entirely.
Among other things: perhaps the urgency of a message is missing when emotion is subtracted, perhaps urgency is sometimes important information, and perhaps simply writing “This is urgent” is not always a substitute.
The larger claim I’d like to make is just a reiteration that where someone’s coming from is often useful or relevant information.
There are different styles of academic writing. Some writers will studiously avoid the use of “I” and will adopt a stuffy stance, or pretence, of dispassion. Others are quite happy to tell you about who they are and will try to be honest. If for no other reason than ease of reading and digesting information, I think my personal preference is for the latter, even if my tendency is perhaps towards the former.
In a legal context character evidence is inadmissible unless it goes to an aspect of the claim. When it comes to witnesses, yes you can attempt to discredit them as either not having sufficient credentials, knowledge, or lying. All of this can be done while following the principles Notung outlined, at least those involved in wPRD.