02 Higher Education Reading Group
Article: Wight, C. (2021). Critical dogmatism: Academic freedom confronts moral and epistemological certainty. Political Studies Review, 19(3), 435-449.
The author identifies that the conflict and many of the issues we are observing within society, can be traced back to internal divisions, and conflicts of how truth is handled within the university
For sake of narrative convenience he simplifies this into:
Camp A: which displays no epistemological humility, and has a moral dogmatic certainty of having complete access to the truth
Camp B: epistemological humility, in terms of understanding of the upper limits of human knowledge and issues that exist with all knowledge production
The argument appears to have one glaring weakness, it seems, which was not being addressed within the article. Namely, the camp A: argument – influenced by postmodernist ideas – makes the claim that knowledge claims are merely a power play, and front for achieving more power.
To which the counter-argument, by the paper, is that power needs to lie with camp B side, as otherwise society will rip itself apart and everything that is laudable in regard to scholarly pursuits losing their power
Henceforth, both positions are right
This was not addressed within the paper, furthermore both positions are internally consistent.
Henceforth, the argument presented within the paper, is somewhat preaching to the choir. In the sense that the people who do not share the underlying presuppositions do not understand what the problem is (camp A)
Meanwhile, the people who can understand the problem and argument, already agree, and it is their agreement that is what they have in common (camp B).
Put differently, what the argument suffered from, was that it can be disqualified based on a no-true Scotsman fallacy.[1] This does not mean, that the argument is this type of fallacy. Rather, that camp A, can dismiss camp B’s position based on this perceived logical inconstancy. However, it is only a logical inconsistency, when knowledge in itself is treated in a simplistic binary fashion. Hence, the subdivision into camp A and camp B, whilst opportune for narrative purposes, opens the argument for this very type of criticism.
What the article does get right, is that there is an emotive dimension to it, which makes these type of argument non-rational, letting them deteriorate into tribal allegiance.
Henceforth, future research instead of further antagonizing the out-group, feeding further tribalism.
Potentially, could investigate of how camp B, represents a civilizing dimension, enabling civilisation in the first place. Which functionally allows individuals with different opinions to collaborate and cooperate.
Yet, the very boundaries of this cooperation cannot be breached, least cooperation will become impossible in general.
[1] No true Scotsman arguments arise when someone is trying to defend their ingroup from criticism (ingroup bias) by excluding those members who don't agree with the ingroup. In other words, instead of accepting that some members may think or act in disagreeable ways, one dismisses those members as fakes.
