Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Peter Gerdes's avatar

My concern here is that I think engaging with the public creates certain obligations/responsibilities that many academics aren't willing to accept. In particular, a responsibility to give an accurate perception of at least what you believe your expertise supports on topics you engage in or near and that includes a responsibility not to selectively omit views on subjects you address. If you are willing to accept that responsibility, that's wonderful but I think people should consider it before jumping in.

In particular, I'd argue that once one starts engaging in public commentary you have a duty not to do so in a selective way that helps create misunderstandings. For instance, go back to the pandemic if you were a health expert blogging about risks who had mentioned the risks from participating in earlier protests I think that created a duty on your part to speak up and say that BLM protests were also a health risk. It would be wrong to -- as many public health officials did -- suddenly go 'shit if I say something about this people might think I support the wrong team' and shut up.

The less direct the connection this weaker this argument but I think it particularly relates to philosophy blogging in a number of ways. For instance, I think you can reasonably make it clear you aren't going to ever talk about philosophy which relates to anything about race, gender etc etc but if you publicly discuss related issues it creates a responsibility not to selectively avoid the places your view might be controversial (see below). It erodes trust in academia generally and in aggregate makes you part of a misinformation/compliance machine. After all, there will always be some people who believe even crazy things and if you let them be the only expert voices heard I think you end up kinda intellectually laundering the accepted view rather than challenging it when wrong.

I think you generally do a decent job with this but I think it's important to be upfront about this because I think academics got themselves into trouble because they didn't think about that duty before they started blogging and when it came up they realized they weren't willing to take that risk so ended up undermining public trust.

--

For example, on Facebook I remember a discussion on a philosopher's page where someone essentially used the argument that since race was socially constructed one could exclude the possibility of robust differences in average intelligence by race. Now I think we have empirical evidence suggesting any such differences will be small and aren't the cause of differential outcomes (racism is empirically unjustified) but that's still obviously a bad argument yet suddenly all the philosophers who had been discussing things declined to comment and I don't think that's ok.

Expand full comment
Eric Schwitzgebel's avatar

Great post -- and thanks for the generous call-out! I agree with basically everything. Some complementary thoughts on why blogging is a good form of philosophical cognition here:

https://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2015/04/blogging-and-philosophical-cognition.html

Expand full comment
29 more comments...

No posts