Renegades!

Civility, Lost

If I have seen farther
It is because I have stood on the shoulders of others
--Newton

I make no claim to have seen ‘further’, but what I would like to convey in this opening quote is the modesty and respect that it conveys. When Newton was being confronted about his findings, and put under duress he modestly deferred to the achievements of the intellectual giants who came before him, namely Copernicus and Galileo. At the time, both of these ,uh, renegades drew the ire of the establishment of the time. Their thinking might have shown (in the long run) to be flawed, or simply wrong in many respects, but their accomplishments compelled others to further their work. Newton disagreed fundamentally with many of their findings, but respected them nonetheless and was rewarded for his open mindedness.

In science, and some other exacting fields, a peer review system (thanks to Bacon, et al) combining theory and practical application has laid a foundation for building a body of knowledge: hypothesis, experiment and peer review all develop conclusions that are based on theory, tested in practice and handily debated in review. Advocacy and politics are, in theory, supposed to play no part in the results. Of course, David Suzuki and a host of other ‘advocates’ posing as ‘scientists’ who represent every special interest under the sun are able to come out with their own ‘findings’ . Theoretically, however, the findings in the scientific world of academia are supposed to be apolitical: Science, in theory, does not have a ‘slant’ or bias. When a scientist presents a new idea in defending a Ph.D, he or she does no longer has to respond to questions like ‘Are you an imbecile? You think there is another inhabitable planet outside our solar system? What an idiot!’

Unfortunately, this kind of approach has made itself an established art in the world of criticism. Maybe it is confining space with which pundits are forced to work with, having only 800 words to convey complex arguments. In short works of criticism, how can you express to a reader that the person you criticize is wrong? The tempting shorthanded approach is an ad hominem attack: A form of criticism that concentrates on the human behind the argument.

In the last three years, we have seen an all out assault on the usual rules surrounding criticism. The reasons are all over the map. Heated discussions, and lines in the sand have culminated in an atmosphere where in the US and Canada, and apparently in the EU as well, political affiliation and opinions have become the only judge of character. Can I have a cordial discussion of political views with someone I vehemently disagree with? Not likely. Can they express to the reasons they disagree with me? It will probably end in fists flying, rather than a well thought out discussion and conclusion to ‘agree to disagree’.

For instance, last year I was making (I thought so anyways) a well reasoned argument against my friend’s position that the US should stay out of Iraq. Whatever you may think of the current situation, or the debate before the war, you might agree that this is a fairly removed situation from my friend and I, and also that either side had a fairly decent argument. At the time, both us were sitting in office towers in (relatively) safe western cities without any chance of being drafted to fight. We were in no immediate danger, and men with guns were not threatening us.

Problems with our back and forth emails emerged when he insisted that I was ‘brainwashed’ and unable to see past the ‘media’s thirst for war’. His insults were a little hard to take and despite numerous attempts to asking him politely to desist, he continued. We simply stopped trading emails referring to the war.

In the US, the situation is worse. Check any nightly newscast, or even Jon Stewarts’ show (I like it anyways) and you will notice that the competing viewpoints are not respected and challenged, but pilloried with ridiculous personal attacks. Recently, a ‘liberal’ newscaster took to calling Condi Rice ‘Aunt Jemima’ and refused to apologize. On right wing websites, like ‘Little Green Footballs’ or left wing sites like ‘Daily Kos’, opposing viewpoints are grounds for cowardly and anonymous attacks by other readers.

Similarly, I was watching Dennis Miller the other night, while Miller launched a screaming attack on what he called a close personal friend, because said ‘friend’ believed that some of the fighters in Falluja might be ‘protecting their homes’. You might disagree or agree with this viewpoint, but does it warrant a rabid-mouthed and furious response? Does it warrant accusations of treason if you disagree? Miller is not an idiot either: we are talking about a history buff, with a master’s in English literature. He is someone who should know better, and his apparent slide into intellectual intolerance sets a dangerous precedence for his viewers.

I started out quoting Newton on this page to remind us that even those we overwhelmingly disagree with might have something valuable to teach us. Newton, Galileo and Copernicus were denounced as heretics by the church, and only later were recognized by the wider world as scientific prophets. This is the standard we might adhere to: How much respect would I respect him or her, if I looked back at this moment several years from now and realized they were correct? How sheepish would I feel if they were proven to have called the situation correctly? How would I correct my own behaviour towards my foe? Nietzsche once said (I paraphrase): “We should encourage the young to respect those they disagree more than those they side with”.

We’re all guilty of not doing exactly the opposite-even Nietzsche.

posted by Shamrocks! @ 7:05 PM