Was Voltaire wrong?

[andygates]

Oxford Union are hosting a debate on free speech tonight, and they invited a couple of people with pretty unfashionable opinions: Nick Griffin, leader of the far-right BNP, and David Irving, the holocaust-denying pseudohistorian.  There is predictable uproar and protest.

Once upon a time, I was a strong advocate of Voltaire's position: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Not so much any more.  Thing is, I've been around long enough now to see some utter nonsense get trolled out and lapped up by the general public.  I don't think that the general public are especially stupid, but I do think that expecting them to judge an opinion coolly, based on the facts, is naive.  And for a while this has been vexing me.  Why, when cool heads can see clearly, does this tripe still have a hold on people?

I think the memetic theory holds water here.  Meme theory says that the "strongest" ideas will flourish in the ecosystem of our minds.  "Strong" does not mean "good" or "valuable" or "true" - "strong" means that the idea has high fecundity and fidelity.  It has to get into lots of minds, and be the same when it gets there.  Now for the political controversy: I think that reactionary, tribal memes are stronger than cool, rational memes.  The stuff you see in your right-wing rant newspaper is vigorous memetic seed; the thought-out arguments full of nuance are weaker, because they are so subtle - they take more effort to impart, and are more vulnerable to mutation.  Their one strength is truth, but the verity of a meme is a pretty weak test.  That comes later, and by then the reactionary memes can be dug well in, reinforced in their own little complexes.

And this is why my path has differed from Voltaire's.  Some ideas may be very, very strong memes, and yet be utter crap: mental kudzu, if you like.  Holocaust denial is a perfect example: there are living witnesses of the Holocaust and yet this can persist?  It's utter, gibbering bunk, yet it has hooks.  So no, while I respect the necessity to have proper discussion, I will not defend to the death Irving's right to contaminate anyone's mind-pool with his virulent, dangerous, silly memes. 

Comments

[gedhrel.livejournal.com]

Here's the thing. You actually close with this:

"while I respect the necessity to have proper discussion, I will not defend to the death Irving's right to contaminate anyone's mind-pool with his virulent, dangerous, silly memes."

Simon and I (obviously, nothing if not predictable) leap to attack a strawman. Why? Consider your own position - if you believe it, then you have to think about which of these trivialised memes you would prefer to enforce: the Voltaire statement, blunt in its absolutism, or your position, which I might summarise in as many words by, "there is some speech that does not merit defence".

If I have to overstate a position (I don't, I'm absolutist in this regard) I know which one I'd prefer to be reinforcing.

[andygates.livejournal.com]

I am aware of the position and I find it damned uncomfortable. But ultimately I'm left feeling that some untruth is stronger in debate than some truth; debate as a tool for determining truth is broken.

I really, really don't like saying that some speech does not merit defence. I've been a member of enough picked-upon minorities with unpopular ideas that it really sticks in my craw. But unstupid people pick up stupid ideas because those ideas are sticky. If the stupid idea is "S-Club are cool" that is of no matter; if the stupid idea is "climate change is a lie" then we're screwed.

[katebush.livejournal.com]

Only if climate change is a truth ;)

[andygates.livejournal.com]

I'm not a climate scientist: umpteen thousand climate scientists say it is.

The similar position of decaring Ford, Toyota, GM and VW all wrong about engines when you have no engineering skill or training is obviously absurd.

[simoneck.livejournal.com]

And yet, all learned people thought the world was flat at one point.

[ravenbait.livejournal.com]

No they didn't!

Yet another example of a stupid meme that is simple and therefore widespread but fundamentally bollocks. Only because it's so obvious and turns up all over the place, people just accept it.

Even intelligent ones. Because it's easy tribal territory and for all the Einsteins and the Picassos and the Kants and the Kasparovs, we're still apes.

As an aside, I can't decide whether anthropocentrism or anthropomorphism is the more irritating.

[simoneck.livejournal.com]

Yes they did. Take a look at the old testament, most ancient societies believed that.
And the theory was quite prevalent in chinese society until quite recently (quite recently being relative, I mean in the last 500 years or something. It's a while since I read that book).

[andygates.livejournal.com]

Even if they did (which I'll cheerily dispute as well), it was the best knowledge at the time. Further knowledge only serves to refine existing knowledge. Einstein didn't make apples fall any differently to Newton.

[gedhrel.livejournal.com]

You are, for once, absolutely correct. However, you should be on the lookout for a new definition of refine, because yours has stretched through overuse.

[simoneck.livejournal.com]

So you agree with me that the best knowledge at the time isn't necessarily true. And if everyone just believed what they were told by the learned people who 'know they are right', then no progress would be made at all.

Man descending from apes is just a refinement of the God created man theory?
Is that 'refining' or 'throwing out the old theory completely and making a new one up from scratch'?