Neither reason without debate nor debate without reason

Politically correct means claiming to be right, but without opening up to debate, while politically incorrect means opening up to debate, but without taking reason into account. Two options to be rejected, because debate and reason go hand in hand.

Two absurd and dangerous trends are making inroads into our liberal democracies. On the side of political correctness, the time has come for «reason without debate»: convinced a priori As holders of the truth, the representatives of bien-pensance call for a sorting of content on social networks, and only practice political discussion within a restricted framework ranging, to put it simply, from social-liberalism to social-liberalism. Just look at the opponents of X, the ex-Twitter. On the other hand, the politically incorrect - born at least in part as a reaction to political correctness - consists in practicing «debate without reason»: it doesn't matter what the facts are, as long as we're debating. Just look at X founder Elon Musk and a substantial number of his fans.

Read also | The sirens of populist caricature

In both cases, debate and reason are misunderstood. For one cannot exist without the other. In defending rational debate as the foundation of individual and, therefore, social progress, classical liberalism defends both debate and reason. What's more, it defends their consubstantial nature.

Testing, a condition of truth

This is what we learn at the school of epistemologists Bertrand Russell and Karl Popper: philosophy and politics must function in a similar way to science. It must be possible to state any thesis, as long as it is comprehensible and can be understood. falsifiable, in the sense of subject to possible refutation. An example of a statement that can't be falsified: «There are invisible aliens at the very heart of our society, beyond our knowledge.» Since it is impossible to show that this thesis is false, it is, so to speak, gratuitous, or unscientific. We have no reason to believe it. Conversely, only theses that can be contradicted by observation are likely to be held as true - on a provisional basis - as long as there is no data to invalidate them.

Because that's what science is all about: testing the most convincing probable by confronting it with the’experience. One element that contradicts this hypothesis, and it is rejected in favor of a more probable one. This is also true of philosophy and politics, to avoid missing out on the tests that are the only way to improve. Entrepreneurs, to whom we dedicate this month's supplement, know this well. They owe their success to their failures.

Defending rational debate

In recent years, the importance of rational debate has not been sufficiently appreciated. Political correctness pushes us to claim to be right, but without opening ourselves up to debate. Political incorrectness pushes us to open up to debate, but without taking into account reason - and therefore the facts that don't suit the discourse we intend to convey. The result is a collection of would-be dictators who want to impose their views, whether at the head of a state, at the bottom of society or in an editorial office. This authoritarianism ultimately leads to the violation of individual rights - the very thing our liberal democracies are supposed to protect us against.

So, to continue protecting freedom, and to preserve the society that makes this protection possible, we need to defend rational debate. And more than defending it, we must also practice it. Duly noted Regard Libre, where we try to keep the discussion going while we wait for counter-arguments. So read and write to us; we'll read and write to you.

Write to the author: jonas.follonier@leregardlibre.com

You have just read an open-access editorial from our print edition (Le Regard Libre N°114). Debates, analyses, cultural news: subscribe to support us and get access to all our content!