Schrödinger's Freedom of Speech

There is a fairly well-known thought experiment known as Schrödinger's Cat. The basic idea of the thought experiment is that, if one were to accept a certain interpretation of quantum mechanics, it would follow that a cat placed into a box, would at some point be simultaneously alive and dead. I'm not a physicist (although I try to stay somewhat informed as a layperson), so if you want to know more about Schrödinger's and his cat, pray to Google, for she is a wise and benevolent deity.

Anyways, I didn't start this post to talk about physicists and their hypothetical cats, but to talk about freedom of speech. It occurred to me last night during a conversation with a friend, that I simultaneously do, and do not, agree with the concept of free speech (hence the title of this post). Allow me to explain.

Whenever someone makes a normative claim (that is, a claim about the way things ought to be), they should be able to state a reason that justifies their claim. Otherwise all you have are a collection of gut feelings. If someone were to walk up to me and say "I think premarital sex should be illegal because I think it's icky!" I suppose my response would be "So what? I don't think it's 'icky'." Unless you can provide a logical reason for your statement that we "should" do something, you simply don't have a convincing argument for much of anything.

Now, let's consider the following claim: "People should have freedom of speech."

The first question out of everyone's mouths should be "Why? What is your justification?"

The best justification I've ever heard is J.S. Mill's "Marketplace of ideas". This holds that, if everyone is allowed to bring their own points of view, and their own idea, and hold a rational, transparent, public discourse, those ideas that are false and not supported by logic or evidence will be abandoned, and those ideas that are true and supported by logic and evidence will be adopted, leading to a greater understanding of the truth.

A similar argument came from the University of Wisconsin - Madison's Board of Regents in 1894. In that year their economics professor had come under fire from various political groups for being a socialist who supported labor unions and boycotts; and there was considerable demand that he should be censured for this because America has a long standing (in my opinion, unhealthy) love affair with capitalism.

The Board of Regents unanimously exonerated the professor, saying,

"As Regents of a university with over a hundred instructors supported by nearly two millions of people who hold a vast diversity of views regarding the great questions which at present agitate the human mind, we could not for a moment think of recommending the dismissal or even the criticism of a teacher even if some of his opinions should, in some quarters, be regarded as visionary. Such a course would be equivalent to saying that no professor should teach anything which is not accepted by everybody as true. This would cut our curriculum down to very small proportions. We cannot for a moment believe that knowledge has reached its final goal, or that the present condition of society is perfect. We must therefore welcome from our teachers such discussions as shall suggest the means and prepare the way by which knowledge may be extended, present evils be removed and others prevented. We feel that we would be unworthy of the position we hold if we did not believe in progress in all departments of knowledge. In all lines of academic investigation it is of the utmost importance that the investigator should be absolutely free to follow the indications of truth wherever they may lead. Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere we believe the great state University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found." ~ 1894 Ely trial committee report

This quote became so popular and well-known as a decree in support of academic freedom and the search for truth, that the UW-Madison class of 1910 had a plaque made of the final sentence, which remains on display at UW-Madison to this day. I've also been told that copies of the plaque have been made and displayed at some other UW campuses.

So there is clearly, a logical justification for freedom of speech. If you allow people to voice dissenting ideas, there is the possibility that they will be right.

Consider, for example, the claim that the Earth is round. The Greek scholar Eratosthenes of Cyrene became the first person to calculate the circumference of the Earth, sometime around the year 200 BCE. Granted his calculation was off by a bit, but using nothing more than the shadows cast by the Sun on a given day of the year, he was able to determine that the Earth was round. Meanwhile, sometime around the year 1500 CE, the Portuguese navigator Ferdinand Magellan famously said, "The Church says that the Earth is flat, but I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow on the moon and I have more faith in the Shadow than in the Church." Some 1,700 years after it had been effectively proven that the Earth is spherical, the church was still saying "no it's not!" Can you imagine how much more advanced our civilization might be if the Church had simply said "You know what, he's got it right" instead of spending centuries saying "The Earth might be round like a coin, but it is NOT round like a ball!" while citing no evidence saved for their scriptures. How much more advanced would our civilization be if the issue of the shape of the Earth had been laid to rest centuries sooner that it actually was?

Clearly, the free dispersal of ideas is necessary to advancement of truth, and as such I support freedom of speech.


That said, I do not support absolute freedom of speech. Allow me to explain once more.

Consider the above example of the shape of the Earth again. On the one hand is evidence from observation, and mathematical calculations establishing that the Earth is a globe. On the other hand is the Church, wielding the knockdown argument of "nuh-uh!" and continuing to teach that the Earth was flat. This was and is directly contrary to the spirit of free speech - that if one follows the evidence, one will reach the truth - and ought therefore to have been treated with absolute disdain and derision.

In short, those who attempt to hide behind the banner of free speech, to spread outright lies and make disproven claims, ought to have their freedom of speech on that topic revoked, until they either apologize and can explain the way in which they were in error (thus proving that they've learned from their mistakes) or can provide new and credible evidence to support the idea that they were actually correct in the first place.

I think it is worth taking a moment to note that I am not asking for any kind of legal action to revise freedom of speech. I am merely recommending a cultural shift, to a culture that does not recognize the freedom to spew nonsense and falsehood, and demands that extraordinary claims be supplemented with extraordinary evidence. In fairness, I think this sort of a culture already partially exists. For example, let's say that you're at a party and you meet this guy. You're chatting for a little bit when he says "You know Elvis is still alive, right?" You chuckle a little bit at this apparent joke until he says "No I'm serious, the government faked his death so he could go spy on the U.S.S.R." As it slowly dawns on you that this guy really is serious, you begin looking for ways to politely exit the conversation (or perhaps if you're not quite so courteous, by now you're openly mocking him to his face). The simple fact is that Elvis is dead, and the fact that this person believes otherwise causes him an immediate social penalty. I would argue that this sort of culture should be expanded to include other nonsense claims. Let's take a moment to consider a handful of these claims:

Whenever someone tries to claim that evolution is "just a theory", they should immediately be cut off. They should be instructed to learn what a "scientific theory" is (maybe even offer to explain it to them). Once this has been accomplished, they should be offered the chance to apologize for attempting to make a dishonest argument, or else be barred from speaking about evolution until they do apologize. Now, far be it from me to say that there can be no critique of evolution. I am well aware that there are certain things that evolutionary theory hasn't quite worked out yet. I'm reasonably sure that there is an evolutionary scientist out there who could truthfully say "Based on our current understanding of evolution, [X] doesn't make sense because [Y] and [Z]." I would be surprised if there wasn't some aspect where we're not quite sure how X fits into the rest of the theory yet; and if someone wants to use accurate scientific data to argue against evolution, I would be thrilled to read their paper! That said, an argument that ignorantly or knowingly misrepresents the meaning of the word "theory" to argue against evolution, demonstrates that they either know nothing about the topic, or that they are outright lying. In either case, this should constitute a forfeit of the freedom to speak on it.

If someone is participating in a formal debate on the existence of "God", and they claim "I cannot prove that a god exists, but you cannot prove that one doesn't!" The debate should come to an immediate halt, the moderator should explain that "Proving Non-Existence" is a fallacy, and the person should be offered the option of either apologizing for his deceitfulness, or forfeiting the debate.

If someone insists that faith-healing or prayer, or energy therapy are valid contributions the field of medicine, they must either provide more credible evidence than this study showing that prayer has no positive effect, and can increase complications by falsely raising the patient's hopes, and this study done by an 11 year-old girl who proved that "energy healers" or "therapeutic touch practitioners" are frauds, or else admit that they have no right to speak on the topic.

People who claim that psychics and astrologers, etc have any real power must either provide hard evidence of this (ham-fisted anecdotes are nowhere near sufficient), or concede - like long-time psychic Mark Edward - that psychics are total frauds, and astrology columns should be pulled from newspapers.

None of the claims that we've just visited are any less ridiculous than the claim that Elvis is still alive. However, when someone makes the claim about Elvis, they face immediate repercussions in that society sees them as a bit looney, yet when someone makes claims about homeopathy, or the medicinal value of prayer, there is typically at least one person in the room who will defend them by saying something like "Well you know, they have the right to free speech... everyone is entitled to their own opinion..." As if the claim that homeopathy or prayer are valid medical treatments, were just some sort of subjective opinion, in the same sense that you might think that the sunset is beautiful and I might not. This is not Schrödinger's Cat where homeopathy or prayer can simultaneously have an effect and have no effect. They either have an effect or they do not, and since our best evidence says that they have no effect, people should not have the right to insist that they do in the absence of substantial evidence.

People should not have the right to spew lies on topics that they know nothing about, or attempt to bolster or discredit claims while providing no evidence to support their position, and as such I oppose freedom of speech.


To recap my position briefly:

• Should people have the right to an honest, forthright, and non-fallacious debate to attempt to reach the truth of a given topic? Absolutely. That is the very purpose of freedom of speech.
• Should people have the right to makes works of fiction? Sure. Why not? Your work isn't true, but you're openly stating that your purpose is to be entertaining, and you're not attempting to pass your work of as being true, so you're not detracting from the pursuit of truth in any meaningful sense. Besides people require leisure and entertainment just as much as knowledge and truth.
• Should people have the right to use dishonest and/or discredited arguments to justify claims, or to twist words or data to make them appear to say something that they do not? No. To do so is not seeking to discover truth, but seeking to con people into believing a lie. This is directly contrary to the reason why freedom of speech exists in the first place, and cannot and must not be tolerated.

So you see, I support freedom of speech, but at the same time I don't support absolute freedom of speech.

“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.” ~ Harlan Ellison

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." ~ Sir Arthur Conan Doyle