One of the most common
rights we see in constitutions around the globe is the freedom of
speech. The right to speak your mind. It is both our boon and our bane: we get
to listen to the protectors of the environment and tolerance as well
as the promoters of hatred and bigotry. Of course, it neither entails
that everything said is intelligent, nor does it absolve anyone from
saying anything stupid – not even remotely. Speaking one's mind
offers the delicate and dangerous opportunity to glimpse inside said
mind.
Following Milton's 1644
Aeropagitica and Paine's Age of Reason (1794-1807), I
think it is possible to argue for the right to listen, as denying
someone the right to speak denies the audience the right to listen.
In fact, I'll argue further that the obligation to have
someone say something stupid should be a corollary stipulated in the
many constitutions which protect the freedom of speech.
Define stupid, I hear?
Stupid as in: rejecting established laws of the physical world,
rejecting accepted scientific facts, asserting evidence which baffle
common sense, exhibiting great insensitivity towards those who
suffer, anything which may cause harm to oneself or to others. Examples?
Sure. God miraculously saving a cross whilst letting the roof of
Notre Dame Cathedral burn. And a few years ago the face of Jesus appearing on
a toast while he doesn't bat an eye at his priests abusing hundreds
of thousands of children. I have a treasure trove of those.
I can already hear some
grumbling at the back. Well, it's your right to be offended,
certainly. The right to be offended is valid at all times, but I'm
afraid it does not constitute an argument, especially
one which should cut any argument short. Must I remind people
that “[w]hat is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without
evidence.” (In more recent years known as Hitchens's razor, but the
occurrence of the concept dates back to at least the 19th
Century).
Carlo Cipolla
(1922-2000), an Italian economic historian, wrote an essay called
The
Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976). Here are his five fundamental
laws of stupidity (also available
here):
Always and inevitably everyone
underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
The probability that a certain
person will be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of
that person.
A stupid person is a person who
causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while
himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
Non-stupid people always
underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In
particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and
places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with
stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
- A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
Let's assume that we are
all part of non-stupid people, just for the sake of not developing
any of those points further, them being self-evident, and dozens of
examples having popped up in our heads.
I understand that the
fewer stoopid people there are the better we should fare as a society,
yet I contend that stupidity has its uses and its benefits - as long as we stick to the
rulebook so we can still perceive the stupid character in what's
being said. Yet I don't believe that someone thinking
differently from me should be grounds for silencing said person,
stupid people above all.
In a nutshell, my
argument runs thus: I'd rather go on hearing the likes of Donald
Trump and his ilk spew stupid things over and over again because it
keeps my standards on their toes, and also because when somebody
asserts something stupid as confidently as the president of the first
economic power in the world, everyone's bound to stop and listen. The
fact that many people, even from his own political side of the
spectrum, recognise the content as moronic is for me a sign of a
healthy society.
Of course I'm
disregarding rule #1: I know there are more stupid people in
circulation...I'm a teacher, and I've seen/am still seeing my daily
share of stupidity. But I believe in the power of education, that it
will prevail on the very, very long run. Even though stupid will
always exist. Even though mistakes shall still be made. It takes an
ex-stupid person to recognise a stupid
person, as we've all believed, at some point, in a stupid theory.
Perhaps we still do, in the dark of night when no one is watching.
No more of this, let's
take a concrete example.
This scientist claims she has discovered the cause for homosexuality, and a cure, and I believe that it would be wrong to discard
the article altogether and put it on the garbage heap of nonsense. I
think it's worth devoting a few minutes to read this woman's case. Why? For the sake of
listening to her line of argument. Because only by listening to what
they say can we rebuke and redress, only by understanding where their
logic falters can we hope to root out this stupid thought and plant a
seed of knowledge. If that's even possible. Stupidity goes too deep
sometimes. I'm not certain this 'academic' has a basic understanding
of human biology, and perhaps her religion's bias is blinding her,
who knows, but I'm certain that if she were to understand and change
her mind it could only come from a heavy dose of reason.
Yet reason and
intelligence can sometimes be counter-productive. Intelligent
arguments usually are fraught with jargon and become boring, while
stupid arguments usually sound funny and stick to our twisted brains.
The outrageous is taken away from its content by the funny, and only
the punchline remains (thanks Augustine for the input!). The problem
is that those with the loudest voices usually aren't the ones with
the best logic, the best arguments, and the most sensible approach.
There is a deep truth in: “The best lack all conviction, while the
worst/ Are full of passionate intensity.” W. B. Yeats, The Second
Coming (1920). Stupid is catchy, smart slips the mind.
Sometimes, when one gets
a lot of ideas in the hope that one good idea will come out, it also
means that there's a handful of stupid ideas wedged in the thought
process. Discarded, to boot, but they were nonetheless necessary to
explore every possible options. Think about Donald Trump tweeting:
“So horrible to watch the massive fire at Notre
Dame Cathedral in Paris. Perhaps
flying water tankers could
be used to put it out. Must act quickly!” (10:39 AM - 15 Apr
2019 – my emphasis). The fact that he wrote “perhaps” and
“could” indicates that he thought of that as a possible
alternative to put out the fire. The fact that many immediately
recognised this as a stupid strategy warmed my heart (pun
intended...too soon?), because it meant that the vast majority of
people understand the basic laws of physics...whilst the president of
the country which publishes the most scientific and technical
articles doesn't.
Stupid comments, stupid
actions, stupid arguments make us think, even sometimes doubt. Think
about the conscientious objector who doesn't want to fight in a war
whom everyone believes to be rightful. Think about the teacher who
tells you that the Earth is 4,000 years old. Think about the
theoretical physicist who tells you that you and your computer, the
ground, the centre of the Earth are being traversed, as we speak, by
trillions upon trillions of neutrinos. You probably wouldn't believe
one, perhaps two, because you would like to have evidence
in order to believe. Had you not doubt, at some point, you wouldn't
be so certain of all the things you're certain about.
At one point in our history we thought we were at the centre of our universe, we thought gravity didn't exist and that the sun revolved around us. Some of us were labelled 'stupid' because they doubted what was commonly accepted as knowledge, and challenged mainstream interpretations because the evidence they had painstakingly gathered pointed in another direction. One last quote to
highlight my point: “Just think of the tragedy of teaching children
not to doubt.” Clarence Darrow, lawyer and author (1857-1938).
