{"id":472,"date":"2018-07-16T10:00:01","date_gmt":"2018-07-16T09:00:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/?p=472"},"modified":"2018-07-13T07:02:54","modified_gmt":"2018-07-13T06:02:54","slug":"inquiry-and-expressing-disagreement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/inquiry-and-expressing-disagreement\/","title":{"rendered":"Speak Up!: Inquiry and Expressing Disagreement"},"content":{"rendered":"

In 1994, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray published The Bell Curve<\/em>.\u00a0 In it, the authors notoriously argued that the difference in performance on IQ tests between members of different races is due to genetics rather than socialization.\u00a0 They argued that the difference between African American average IQ scores and white American scores is caused, at least in part, by genetic differences.\u00a0 They further argued that this difference in genetics also explains differences in income, job success, and criminality, among other things.\u00a0 These claims, according to Herrnstein and Murray, were the results of years of work in behavioral genetics.<\/p>\n

The Bell Curve<\/em> was met with wide public protest.\u00a0 There were sit-ins, and calls for Murray to resign his various academic posts (Herrnstein died soon after publication).\u00a0 Some behavioral geneticists, particularly those interested in animal behavioral genetics, dismissed the work as well.<\/p>\n

However, the academic reaction was not entirely negative.\u00a0 In the 1995 keynote address to the Behavioral Genetics Association, Glayde Whitney, professor of behavioral genetics, suggested that Murray and Herrnstein\u2019s work be pursued \u2013 that The Bell Curve<\/em> opened many lines of important research.\u00a0 Then, an editorial in The Wall Street Journal<\/em>, signed by fifty-two geneticists defended Herrnstein and Murray against accusations that their data and analysis were problematic.<\/p>\n

Despite signing this editorial, many of these same geneticists thought that the science of the book was deeply flawed.\u00a0 Subsequent interviews with signatories to that editorial revealed that they never thought that the relationship between genetic correlates for intelligence and race were informative or even possibly informative.\u00a0 These scientists disagreed with the findings of The Bell Curve<\/em>.\u00a0 They just didn\u2019t say so (Panofsky, 2014).<\/p>\n

It seems to me that these disagreeing scientists failed to behave properly on two counts.\u00a0 First, these scientists participated in the publication of an editorial that said, or perhaps implied, something they did not believe.\u00a0 They lied or misled the readers of that editorial and lying is often considered to be a moral failure.\u00a0 Second, these scientists ought to have said what they in fact believed.\u00a0 Intuitively, these scientists should have publicly expressed<\/em> that they disagreed with the findings in The Bell Curve<\/em>. And while both kinds of failures are interesting, it is this latter failing that interests me here.<\/p>\n

This second failure \u2013 the failure of the scientists to say, publicly, that they disagreed with The Bell Curve<\/em> might be a moral or practical failing \u2013 perhaps some moral harm was caused when people believed that these scientists endorsed The Bell Curve<\/em> or the scientists had some practical duty to try to correct public opinion.\u00a0 However, this does not seem to fully capture the case.\u00a0 Even if nothing moral or practical were at stake, we\u2019d think that the scientists should have said what they thought about the research.\u00a0 They should have done so because they were engaged in inquiry<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Inquiry involves using evidence and reason to make progress on some question or questions.\u00a0 It can be something as deep and important as the physical nature of the universe, or it can be something as ephemeral as where to go to dinner.\u00a0 And inquiry is what philosophers call an epistemic<\/em> activity.<\/p>\n

I want to suggest that, together with their moral and practical reasons to say that they disagreed, the scientists also had epistemic reasons<\/em> to voice their disagreement with The Bell Curve<\/em>.\u00a0 And if this is right, then when we\u2019re in situations relevantly similar to that of the scientists, we have also have epistemic reasons to voice our disagreements.<\/p>\n

Now, this does not mean that we have good reason to go around voicing all of our disagreements with every disagreeable statement we hear.\u00a0 I don\u2019t (typically) have to tell a stranger I disagree with something she\u2019s said.\u00a0 If, for example, I\u2019m riding the bus and I hear someone claim that the fifth season of The Wire<\/em> is the very best, I don\u2019t have to chime in to disagree.\u00a0 Voicing all our disagreements would be rude, and exhausting, and it\u2019s not clear how doing so would contribute to inquiry.\u00a0 Instead, we should voice our disagreements when doing so has the potential to improve or contribute to some inquiry we\u2019re engaged in.<\/p>\n

It also doesn\u2019t mean that we should voice our disagreements to just anyone.\u00a0 Even if I\u2019m engaged in inquiry about what to watch tonight, I don\u2019t have a good reason to tell my fellow bus-rider I disagree with her television assessment.\u00a0 I have an epistemic reason to tell you about my disagreement insofar as I\u2019m engaged in inquiry with you<\/em>.\u00a0 So, if you and I are trying to decide what to watch tonight, I plausibly have an epistemic reason to tell you my views on The Wire <\/em>\u2013 you and I are trying to investigate a question for which this disagreement is relevant and so I have epistemic reasons to express my disagreement to you.<\/p>\n

Finally, it doesn\u2019t mean that I have a reason to voice my disagreement in whatever way I please.\u00a0 If the scientists voiced their disagreements in cruel or excessively esoteric ways, their expressions would be unlikely to contribute to the inquiry they\u2019re pursuing.\u00a0 Epistemic reasons are only one kind \u2013 I\u2019ll also have moral reasons to be kind, practical reasons to be efficacious, etc. and meeting these requirements can help me in my pursuit of inquiry.\u00a0 One of our challenges, as inquirers, is to balance these (sometimes competing) reasons.<\/p>\n

If I\u2019m right then you ought, at least sometimes, to be telling people when you disagree.\u00a0 When you\u2019re engaged in inquiry, when you won\u2019t badly hurt someone\u2019s feelings, when you can do so in a way that will help you pursue the question at hand, you ought to express your disagreements.\u00a0 Failing to do so is a kind of epistemic failing.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Panofsky, A. (2014). Misbehaving science: Controversy and the development of behavior genetics<\/em>. University of Chicago Press.<\/p>\n

Photograph Olive Morris, Community Activist Photo: Lambeth Archives<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"In 1994, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray published The Bell Curve.\u00a0 In it, the authors notoriously argued that the difference in performance on IQ tests between members of different races […]","protected":false},"author":1319,"featured_media":476,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[19],"tags":[112,36,141],"custom_author":[140],"class_list":["post-472","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-open-for-debate","tag-disagreement","tag-epistemology","tag-inquiry","custom_author-johnson-rebecca-casey"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8KPlM-7C","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":698,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/the-human-ingredient-needed-for-productive-disagreement\/","url_meta":{"origin":472,"position":0},"title":"The Human Ingredient Needed for Productive Disagreement","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"July 1, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"My last post argued that engaging in disagreement outside of one\u2019s own group works as an antidote to beliefs that are oversimplified and therefore inaccurate. But disagreement cannot do this alone. By itself, it can even prompt us to be less receptive to refinements to our view \u2013 especially on\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/06\/shadows.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/06\/shadows.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/06\/shadows.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/06\/shadows.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1507,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/why-care-about-knowledge\/","url_meta":{"origin":472,"position":1},"title":"WHY CARE ABOUT KNOWLEDGE?","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"August 22, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"We care about knowledge. Given a choice between getting information about my illness from a doctor or a quack, I\u2019d always go with the doctor. Why? Because, unlike the quack, the doctor knows what they are talking about. Explaining what the value of knowledge consists in is one of the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/08\/siora.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/08\/siora.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/08\/siora.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":729,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/i-am-an-atheist\/","url_meta":{"origin":472,"position":2},"title":"I am an atheist","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"September 9, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"I am an atheist.\u00a0 That is, I believe that God does not exist.\u00a0 I don\u2019t make a point of telling people this (except when I\u2019m writing a philosophical piece like this), but when I do tell people this, I get strong, often accusing reactions.\u00a0 People challenge my moral character (\u201cSo\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/09\/Graffitied-Atheism-Advert.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/09\/Graffitied-Atheism-Advert.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/09\/Graffitied-Atheism-Advert.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1369,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/on-choosing-reality-how-public-discussions-of-gender-recognition-go-wrong-and-what-we-can-do-about-it-part-1-arguing-about-what-gender-really-is\/","url_meta":{"origin":472,"position":3},"title":"On \u201cChoosing Reality\u201d: How Public Discussions of Gender Recognition Go Wrong, and What We Can Do About It: Part 1 Arguing About What Gender Really Is","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"February 7, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Content advice: transphobia. On 10th October 2018, a full page-advert ran in the Metro, London\u2019s free commuter newspaper. The topic of the advert was an imminently closing government consultation on the Gender Recognition Act 2004, the legislation governing changes of legal gender for trans people in England and Wales. The\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/02\/Gender-Recognition-Act-715x431-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/02\/Gender-Recognition-Act-715x431-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/02\/Gender-Recognition-Act-715x431-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/02\/Gender-Recognition-Act-715x431-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":691,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/the-benefits-of-disagreement\/","url_meta":{"origin":472,"position":4},"title":"The Benefits of Disagreement","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"June 17, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Our world contains a whirlwind of claims and opinions, including about important matters like politics, ethics, and religion. In forming our own view, it is natural to find our way by taking the opinions of our friends, social media circles, and political and religious compatriots more seriously than outsiders\u2019. After\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/06\/Handshake-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/06\/Handshake-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/06\/Handshake-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/06\/Handshake-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/06\/Handshake-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/06\/Handshake-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":709,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/putting-academic-skepticism-to-work\/","url_meta":{"origin":472,"position":5},"title":"Putting Academic Skepticism to Work","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"July 29, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"The Academic Skeptics were philosophers who modeled themselves on Socrates and his method of questioning.\u00a0 When the Delphic Oracle reported that no one was wiser than him, Socrates reasoned that whatever wisdom he had was to be found in his recognizing that he does not know many important things.\u00a0 And\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/07\/Philosopher-16-6-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/07\/Philosopher-16-6-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/07\/Philosopher-16-6-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/07\/Philosopher-16-6-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/07\/Philosopher-16-6-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/07\/Philosopher-16-6-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]}],"meta_box":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/07\/Olive-Morris-Lambeth-Archives-010.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/472","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1319"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=472"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/472\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":477,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/472\/revisions\/477"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/476"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=472"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=472"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=472"},{"taxonomy":"custom_author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/custom_author?post=472"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}