[Deckard]

Very interesting article Chuck.

The phrase intellectual honesty has been banded about so often that it's almost become something of a cliche, but isn't that (or the monumental lack of it) what we're talking about here?

We accept that not everyone will be as informed as everyone else. We accept that not everyone will be as capable in reason as everyone else. But don't we also need to raise greater attention to the fact that meaningful dialogue is what facilitates a healthy democracy, and what facilitates meaningful dialogue is, among other things, the capacity not to become so attached to an idea or an ideology or a tribe that honesty goes out the window.

Of course before a person is able to test their existing beliefs and opinions/self-critique - they first have to be willing to do so. Which requires a certain emotional intelligence. (And is it just me or do we seem to be heading in the wrong direction on that score too?)

Even before any of this, people need to know what intellectual honesty actually is, and appreciate its value. Yes it's very difficult to exercise it 100% of the time. But - to borrow a point from Strangelet - that doesn't mean there's no room for improvement, or that a great deal of improvement isn't badly needed. Is it taught in schools? (I don't mean the scientific method. I mean in teaching how to formulate and develop and assess one's own opinions, and specifically, the virtues in doing so.) I doubt it's something that we can rely on parents to impart. And we can be sure that from the moment people embark as an adult into the world (even way before that) they'll be faced with an onslaught that does its absolute best to discourage intellectual honesty.

So I think what I will fuzzily call "the intellectual climate" needs to change (at least in the English-speaking world I know most about) - but is the internet helping or hindering?

What Sean says about the way technology has transformed the conversation, essentially in terms of voices and ears, is spot on. The egalitarian might welcome the greater egalitarianism, and that's fair enough. But in amplifying all sentiments, it's providing a louder voice to those who previously didn't possess one. And it's an uncomfortable truth that those people who previously lacked a voice are unfortunately, for various reasons, slightly more likely to come from the uninformed than the informed side of the spectrum. Now if we lived in a culture that revered intelligence, that wouldn't be a problem. But what we have instead is a growing anti-intellectual culture that operates at the visceral rather than intellectual level and is celebrated as such. Politicians, particularly on the right, have known and exploited this for years. The end result is that those Joe the Plumbers may gain greater and greater sway over public opinion, and politics will head rightward.

Which begs the question: is it possible, even in theory, to have become too democratic? Or has our intellectual growth failed to keep up with our democratic growth? (By democratic, I don't mean the levers of government; I mean the ability to make noise and be heard and sway opinion.)

I don't think we can afford to ignore the potential for very serious damage here.