Dr. Sened is a Professor of Political Science at
Washington University in St. Louis, and former chair of the Political
Science Department at Washington University. His main interests are
comparative theory of institutions, game theory and mathematical
modeling. Dr. Sened teaches Undergraduate and Graduate level courses in
the Political Science Department.
This coming Monday we will post a post by Murray
Weidnbaum. Everyone who knows who Murray
Weidenbaum is, knows his political background at the heart of the Republican
consecutive conservative administration of the 1970s and 1980’s. We believe that posting his post and then a
follow up directly discussion his claims is going to be really beneficial for
us all. So brace yourself for some
heated debate starting next week.
This Monday I am going to concede my position as chief
blogger of this blog to a close friend of mine, Murray Weidenbaum. In my mind, Murray Weidenbaum is one of the
most influential intellectuals of the 20th century. He pretty much invented the so-called
Reaganomics or was at the very least one of its founding fathers.
Needless to say, that our positions on a lot of different
issues differ significantly, but I have always found it fascinating to have
this open debate with Murray. So much so
that many years ago we started co-teaching a class on social sciences that
co-teach to this very day. The open
disagreements between us enriches the perspective of the students and enriches
both of us as we engage in these debates in front of our students.
Murray Weidnbaum has been so kind as agree to bring our open
debate to the blog. I find his post
extremely helpful because it will allow all of our readers to ‘hear the other
side.’ But probably much more importantly it will allow me to get into some of
the issues we would never have gotten into had we not had a ‘devils advocate’
in Murray Weidenbaum.
Shortly after publishing Murray’s post on Monday I will take
a stab at it, writing a long response that I would hope draw Murray to respond
and that will create some fascinating drama on the Blog and will allow us to
survey new territory we would have not gotten into with out this exercise.
One of the most famous philosophical arguments in defense of
open and free speech appears in ‘On Liberty’ by John Stuart Mill. The beauty of
the argument is in the four stages it proceeds in that I want to remind all of
us. In the first stage Mill point out
that we don’t know what is true so we would better remain open to diverging
views. The next step is to argue that
even if we believe that ‘truth is on our side’ we need to be careful to check
ourselves and opening up and listening to other opinions are the only way to do
so. The third step is to argue that even
if ‘truth is on our side’ and the other opinion is probably lacking, it is
still the case that the other opinion may include some bits and pieces of truth
that are worth paying attention to.
Finally, Mill argues, even if ‘truth is on our side and there is nothing
to be gained from the other opinion which is patently wrong, without a patently
wrong opinion to compare it to, we would never be able to establish and
appreciate that which is true.
As we launched the blog we promised to bring in all the
opinions worthy of print. Murray
Weidenbaum’s certainly pass the threshold of being worthy of publication, but
for our purposes it will serve as a first step in an open debate that will
enrich all of us.
So brace yourself for some drama next week. Yesterday’s post by Alex Bluestone advocated
a dialog that will cut through political and ideological positions. We believe that the open debate with Murray
Weidenbaum will enrich the discussion on our blog and that is why we look
forward to the drama to start on Monday.
No comments:
Post a Comment