I think it's more that most people realise "I get in trouble if I say that, so I just won't say it anymore" or "everyone seems to disagree with me on this, so I won't even think about it anymore". Those people might be leading healthier lives (why die on a hill you don't have to die on), but it doesn't mean they're closer to the truth necessarily.
The fact about some debates not being acceptable on public forums as opposed to private discussions would be fine, if it weren't for that fact that it's being applied extremely inconsistently.
> "everyone seems to disagree with me on this, so I won't even think about it anymore"
I would like to quote pg's own rhetoric of "is my situation unique?":
> And yet at every point in history, there were true things that would get you in terrible trouble to say. Is ours the first where this isn't so? What an amazing coincidence that would be.
I suspect that many people, myself among them, think "everyone seems to disagree with me on this, so I am likely to be wrong." Otherwise I am forced to believe that I am the only person who can see things correctly, a mindset that is at least statistically false, even if it might very occasionally apply to a particular person. This response I think naturally worries a lot of people, since it sounds awfully close to silencing dissent, but there are two things that I think make it meaningfully different.
1. If everyone disagrees with you about your scientific, or otherwise verifiable, ideas, then you definitely should not say "oh well, I must be wrong." You should test those ideas. The risk (failed investment in a test whose outcome was widely predicted) and reward (being the scientific or other leader in a discovery that upends expectations) here are both high, and many parts of science, at least, are set up to reward individuals who decide to make that trade.
2. There is a difference between my saying "everyone disagrees with me, so I am likely to be wrong", which I think is a good thing, and my saying "everyone disagrees with me, so I am wrong", which I think is a bad thing. Experiencing widespread disagreement should make me carefully examine my assumptions and biases, not just import opposite assumptions and biases.
I think we just disagree about the implications of "everyone disagrees with me". I may not be fully knowledgeable about many things, but in the few things that I do know a lot about, I know that many people have no idea what they're talking about; but this also means that even in the areas where I'm not necessarily 100% sure whether my opinion is right, I don't tend to just go with whatever everyone believes is true. That doesn't necessarily mean that I am correct, but it also doesn't mean that the other person is.
I do tend to believe well-respected and well-published scientists unless I have very, very strong reasons to believe the contrary, but that's about it.
edit: Furthermore, your statement assumes that it's always about a situation where you can be "right" or "wrong", but in many, especially ethical, questions, there is no "right" or "wrong", just different priorities and points of view. I think many people do recognise that "it can't be that wrong to disagree about this, whatever my personal opinion", but prefer not to object because why bother?
You assume dissent is because "everyone disagrees with me", but, from what I've seen, cancel culture-style fisagreements are about a side being way more vocal than the other, not necessarily correlated with thr number of people who agree.
It's worth it to me to question my perspective if even one person disagrees with me—frankly, even if no-one disagrees with me. If my beliefs can't hold up even under my own scrutiny, how can they hold up under anyone else's?
I would mention besides that, while there are often a few people very loud about their disagreement, there is no reason to think that there aren't more people made uncomfortable by an assumption I made that I didn't even realise I was making, people who don't feel safe confronting me about it. Maybe I hold the opinion sufficiently strongly that it's more important to me to say than to avoid worrying about it offending someone else, and I think that can be the right decision; but I'd rather make that decision consciously than bumble into offending someone out of ignorance.
I am not sure what you're saying. Of course you shouldn't hold your opinions infallible, but
>I would mention besides that, while there are often a few people very loud about their disagreement, there is no reason to think that there aren't more people made uncomfortable by an assumption I made that I didn't even realise I was making, people who don't feel safe confronting me about it.
I feel like, if you're making assumptions you don't realize you are making, the more reason you have to express your opinion so someone can bring it up.
>but I'd rather make that decision consciously than bumble into offending someone out of ignorance.
I'm not sure it's worth caring about people's feeling so much as to silence your opinions. This neither benefits you nor society, and only serve to appease people that cannot handle others having disagreeing opinions. The whole purpose of public discourse if to refine opinions.
I agree that it's worth scrutinizing your own arguments and try to be conscious of biases. I also agree that we all often do a lousy job at it. That said, I am generally open to arguments and I feel that I do at least sometimes change my mind when convinced by reasonable arguments.
But that doesn't at all imply that I should stop believing something just because a handful of people think they need to shout something at me.
And the argument "there might be other, silent people also disagreeing" goes both ways, there might be other people who agree with me but choose to remain silent too, and that are uncomfortable with what the other side is claiming.
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here. All these things have happened and still sometimes continue to happen. I don't know whether anyone has ever denied that but I certainly haven't.
The fact about some debates not being acceptable on public forums as opposed to private discussions would be fine, if it weren't for that fact that it's being applied extremely inconsistently.