meta-idea on ideas

A founding principle of liberalism (classically speaking) is that freedom of speech is good because in ensures a "marketplace of ideas", where citizens can learn from each other and where, assuming our ability to suss out good ideas from bad, the best ideas will eventually rise to the top.

But can we really assume that we have an "ability to suss out good ideas from bad"? 

I know it goes against the grain of most academics and every humanist to say it - but maybe we just have to give up the idea that we humans are able to reasonably reason at all. The overwhelming evidence of Social Psychology is that rational thought plays a piddling role in the cultivation of our beliefs. More determinant are self-interest and social pressures. What we think are our "reasons" may be exclusively post-hoc rationalizations of beliefs we already hold (because we need, after all, to keep the illusion that our thoughts are both logical and our own). History also gives us plenty of examples of fairly open societies where the ideas that "rose to the top" were not so brilliant, if not disastrously genocidal.

Does that mean a "marketplace of ideas" is a false ideal? Perhaps not. But maybe it gets its power not by virtue of individuals battling out opposing ideas through their mental powers. Maybe the battleground is outside the realm of minds and words - but happens in the world of reality, that is, all the tangible stuff that comes with "good" ideas. 

As many have noted, this can happen on a global scale - as when "capitalism" beat out the idea of "communism" once it became clear that those in capitalist countries had a lot more goodies. It can also happen at the local or national level - as when it becomes clear (in large cities in particular) that holding on to that anti-Semitism or homophobia really isn't going to help your business out much.

Just like every other human, I too like to imagine that my beliefs are the result of reason and enlightenment - but who am I fooling? Transport my brain to 1917 St. Petersburg, 1933 Berlin or 2013 Orange County - who knows, I could have some pretty zany notions about right or wrong. Maybe I have my beliefs today merely because those are the beliefs that have tended to get groups and individuals some nice material benefits. I know they work for me.

lest we get nostalgic for more enlightened days of democracy

"Open-minded voters who make a sincere attempt to weigh the issues and the candidates dispassionately for the good of the country as a whole - exist mainly in the deferential campaign propaganda, in textbooks on civics, in the movies, and in the minds of some political idealists."

- Paul Lazarsfeld, 1944

question for the day

If social scientists are able to make accurate predictions by crunching big data numbers, but there's no theory or understanding behind those predictions - are they doing social science?

Science, knowledge and understanding are fundamentally useful to the degree that they make predictions. Some say human intelligence, at its core, is nothing more than the ability to have a handle on the future (what valley you're most likely to find ripe fruit, what gal is most likely to make a good wife - and agree to ever marry you, what stocks to invest in, etc.). 

In the past, in order to be a good predictor you had to have good theories (or at least a few rules of thumb), because there was no way a human brain could calculate all the factors affecting future events. A good theory therefore, was touted as one that could explain a lot with as little input as possible.

But today, super computers are getting better and better at making predictions with no "understanding" whatsoever. Merely by scanning for past patterns and relations, Watsons can churn out questions to Jeopardy answers and Nate Silvers can predict presidential election results. (Nate's not actually a super computer, but his algorithms are pattern hunters that are more interested in predicting how people will vote rather than why they vote the way they do.)

Here's another prediction: as computers churn ever larger seas of data,  "theory" will one day become as quaint a notion as "philosophy" or "god."