"...if we have any faith in the tendency of good arguments to eventually win out over bad ones (and if we don’t have such faith, what are we even doing in academia?)."
This is a problematic assumption, embedded in another problematic assumption.
Assumption #1 is that, by default, interlocutors operate in good faith, with the shared purpose…
"...if we have any faith in the tendency of good arguments to eventually win out over bad ones (and if we don’t have such faith, what are we even doing in academia?)."
This is a problematic assumption, embedded in another problematic assumption.
Assumption #1 is that, by default, interlocutors operate in good faith, with the shared purpose of attaining shared understanding of matters under study, and the sought shared understanding will encompass the best available evidence and sound reasoning.
Since you mention your position is currently in Florida, I'll note that nothing about the efforts of the Desantis adminstration, and its allies, to dismantle public education at every level is based on a good faith belief that the education of Florida students will improve. The dismantling of public education in Florida by the Desantis regime is simply the use of threats against educators to eradicate any information and views deemed threatenting to the regime itself. These actions were, of course, foreshadowed by Desantis ordering the arrest of a public health statistician in her own home for the crime of compiling and making available accurate information about CoVid infections and death rates.
That is, the notion that debates about ideas (in some idealized abstract formulation) are generally pursued in good faith by all parties is not merely false, it is dangerously false. This premise serves to, or attempts to, occlude the manifest, and malign, intentions of any number of actors (some who hold tenure at public universities, or serve on governing boards). I encourage revisiting the origins of the term 'white-washing' in this regard. Not all who cloak themselves in the garb of the noble pursuit of knowledge through academic argumentation are in fact engaged in this noble pursuit. A fair reading of the history of higher education in the US and Europe tells us just the opposite, in fact, and the institutions themselves have laregly been instruments of promoting the worldview, interests (and professional prospects) of one demographic- cis gender hetero White males.
Assumption #2 is that academia exists, or should exist, as a separate space from the polis that constructs and maintains it.
Professional academics inhabit that space, and are largely entrusted to manage it, on behalf of the public that pays for it, and the students who seek an education within its confines. No part of our day to day life lies outside of the realm of politics, and how educational institutions are utilized by those on public payroll is, of course, subject to public scrutiny. The pretense of a rarefied atmosphere that surrounds academia, insulating it from the shabby business of the community at large, may suffice as some sort of emotional or ego salve, but it is nothing but a convenient fiction, especially for those who prefer to not be forthcoming about the ideological bases and purposes of their 'politically neutral' scholarly work. Either insufficient self-awareness and critical reflection, or disingenuousness, or perhaps both, is subserved by this fiction. In any event, any scholarly claim (especially some claim in moral philosophy!) is inextricably woven into the political setting in which it is promulgated, and emerges from the political framework of the individual espousing the claim. It suits the sensibilities of some to suggest otherwise, but that is again a display of bad faith, or at least a failure to recognize the sociopolitical nature of *every* idea. Surely a philosopher by trade should know better than to traffic in the mythology of politically neutral ideas and institutions.
With all that in mind, to even frame the whole concern as 'scholarly arguments about ideas' serves as obfuscation. The issue is *public statements*, and the harmful effects of public statements in publicly funded fora that are designed to effect harmful outcomes- to vilify, to denigrate, to harass, to obstruct, to incite.
It's 2023. Certainly we're not going to contend that words, written and spoken, bear no relation to the conduct the words are designed to prompt, are we?
re:1: I do think it's essential to *default* to the assumption that one's interlocutors are operating in good faith. If I didn't have that default assumption, why shouldn't I just delete your comment, and those of anyone else who disagrees with me? This dogmatic alternative would seem to make reasoned argument impossible.
Of course, default assumptions may be revised in the face of evidence. I certainly don't think that DeSantis & co. are operating in good faith. But no part of my argument relies on claiming otherwise.
re: 2: You haven't engaged at all with my argument that you're "making DeSantis’ case for him—why shouldn’t a political arena be under political control?"
tbh, I'm really only interested in intellectually engaging with other truth-seekers. When I read remarks in the "everything is just politics" style, I wonder why I should waste my time even reading it. By their own admission, they're only interested in manipulating me into sharing their political views. Why would I voluntarily expose myself to such propaganda? It's an incredibly self-defeating stance (and rhetorical style) to adopt.
"...if we have any faith in the tendency of good arguments to eventually win out over bad ones (and if we don’t have such faith, what are we even doing in academia?)."
This is a problematic assumption, embedded in another problematic assumption.
Assumption #1 is that, by default, interlocutors operate in good faith, with the shared purpose of attaining shared understanding of matters under study, and the sought shared understanding will encompass the best available evidence and sound reasoning.
Since you mention your position is currently in Florida, I'll note that nothing about the efforts of the Desantis adminstration, and its allies, to dismantle public education at every level is based on a good faith belief that the education of Florida students will improve. The dismantling of public education in Florida by the Desantis regime is simply the use of threats against educators to eradicate any information and views deemed threatenting to the regime itself. These actions were, of course, foreshadowed by Desantis ordering the arrest of a public health statistician in her own home for the crime of compiling and making available accurate information about CoVid infections and death rates.
That is, the notion that debates about ideas (in some idealized abstract formulation) are generally pursued in good faith by all parties is not merely false, it is dangerously false. This premise serves to, or attempts to, occlude the manifest, and malign, intentions of any number of actors (some who hold tenure at public universities, or serve on governing boards). I encourage revisiting the origins of the term 'white-washing' in this regard. Not all who cloak themselves in the garb of the noble pursuit of knowledge through academic argumentation are in fact engaged in this noble pursuit. A fair reading of the history of higher education in the US and Europe tells us just the opposite, in fact, and the institutions themselves have laregly been instruments of promoting the worldview, interests (and professional prospects) of one demographic- cis gender hetero White males.
Assumption #2 is that academia exists, or should exist, as a separate space from the polis that constructs and maintains it.
Professional academics inhabit that space, and are largely entrusted to manage it, on behalf of the public that pays for it, and the students who seek an education within its confines. No part of our day to day life lies outside of the realm of politics, and how educational institutions are utilized by those on public payroll is, of course, subject to public scrutiny. The pretense of a rarefied atmosphere that surrounds academia, insulating it from the shabby business of the community at large, may suffice as some sort of emotional or ego salve, but it is nothing but a convenient fiction, especially for those who prefer to not be forthcoming about the ideological bases and purposes of their 'politically neutral' scholarly work. Either insufficient self-awareness and critical reflection, or disingenuousness, or perhaps both, is subserved by this fiction. In any event, any scholarly claim (especially some claim in moral philosophy!) is inextricably woven into the political setting in which it is promulgated, and emerges from the political framework of the individual espousing the claim. It suits the sensibilities of some to suggest otherwise, but that is again a display of bad faith, or at least a failure to recognize the sociopolitical nature of *every* idea. Surely a philosopher by trade should know better than to traffic in the mythology of politically neutral ideas and institutions.
With all that in mind, to even frame the whole concern as 'scholarly arguments about ideas' serves as obfuscation. The issue is *public statements*, and the harmful effects of public statements in publicly funded fora that are designed to effect harmful outcomes- to vilify, to denigrate, to harass, to obstruct, to incite.
It's 2023. Certainly we're not going to contend that words, written and spoken, bear no relation to the conduct the words are designed to prompt, are we?
Just sayin'.
re:1: I do think it's essential to *default* to the assumption that one's interlocutors are operating in good faith. If I didn't have that default assumption, why shouldn't I just delete your comment, and those of anyone else who disagrees with me? This dogmatic alternative would seem to make reasoned argument impossible.
Of course, default assumptions may be revised in the face of evidence. I certainly don't think that DeSantis & co. are operating in good faith. But no part of my argument relies on claiming otherwise.
re: 2: You haven't engaged at all with my argument that you're "making DeSantis’ case for him—why shouldn’t a political arena be under political control?"
tbh, I'm really only interested in intellectually engaging with other truth-seekers. When I read remarks in the "everything is just politics" style, I wonder why I should waste my time even reading it. By their own admission, they're only interested in manipulating me into sharing their political views. Why would I voluntarily expose myself to such propaganda? It's an incredibly self-defeating stance (and rhetorical style) to adopt.