The real academic tradition - arguing

Is disagreement a good thing? Should people be encouraged or discouraged from disagreeing and arguing? Are arguments in politics good or bad? What about in science? Do scientists and academics disagree and argue?

According to Jason Palmer, groups of physicists and engineers are strongly disagreeing about the possibility of a using a basic property of light to meet the world's rapidly increasing demands for transmitting information (2012). In " 'Twisted light' data-boosting idea sparks heated debate", Palmer reports that this argument is being conducted in academic journals with each side saying that the other is wrong and presenting their supporting evidence and reasons.

First, although I studied physics at university many years ago (only for two years), and maintain some interest in it, I am completely incompetent to comment on who might be right, although I would be inclined to bet on the physicists more than the engineers. But it's the engineers who actually make things that work, like mobile phones, bridges, plastic cups and the internet. I was interested in this article because it makes the important point that argument and disagreement are not just normal parts of academic work, but that they are essential. Academic journals are basically a record of later writers arguing, with supporting evidence and reasons, that earlier people's ideas were either completely wrong or in some way not good enough. Although physics does much better, in medical research, "it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true" (Ioannidis, 2005, Summary). This high error rate is not a problem, but I think natural and something that we must accept as we seek to improve our knowledge of how things work in the world. Mathematics, on the other hand, is pretty safe - mathematicians have the great advantage of not having to worry too much about the messy real world, and although there are arguments, very few mathematics papers contain ideas that are later proven to be wrong.

I think the same is true of social and political issues, which are much more like medicine than mathematics, except ideas about politics and society are likely even messier and therefore more in need of debate and disagreement than those of medicine or physics. If something is controversial, or not controversial, the only possible way to have knowledge or any opinion worth believing is if argument and disagreement are possible and are encouraged. This is why free speech is so essential to democracy and to every healthy society. When speech is censored on some topic to stop disagreement or to stop some opinions being stated, the only certain result is that beliefs on that topic are not well supported, are not well founded and are not knowledge. Such opinions must, in fact, be largely worthless since they are based solidly on nothing better than ignorance. North Korea is a good example: the North Korean citizens probably believe that their current leader and his dead father the "dear leader" and his dead father the "great leader" are good people working to selflessly help the country and people to prosper against external and internal enemies. They are also completely wrong, but since North Korean law strictly forbids any negative criticism or statement about their leader, it is impossible for the false beliefs ever to be corrected or truth on that topic to be known. I am sure that the unhappily enslaved and deeply impoverished citizens of North Korea sincerely respect and love their leader and his ancestors, but that is only possible because North Korean law enforces ignorance by not allowing any free speech on those topics. Another example is from the dark ages of Europe, when powerful popes and other Christian groups managed to have passed strong laws to prevent any criticism of the religion, its teachings or its power: the result was ignorance so extreme it truly was a dark age of injustice when science was as impossible as social progress.

Science progresses because, and only when, free speech is allowed. Perhaps it is no accident that science comes from the same ancient Greek source that also gave the world democracy? One thing the US gets absolutely right is its very strong protection of the basic human right to free speech.

__________

Reference

Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005, August 30). Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Medicine 2(8): e124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Palmer, J. (2012, November 8). 'Twisted light' data-boosting idea sparks heated debate. BBC New Science & Environment. Retrieved November 8, 2012 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20217938