This is implying there is always a Right™ answer or way to do something - especially when it comes to policy, for example, there's plenty of space for nuance that has no objective right or wrong. Life isn't math, regardless of how much our polarised world wants it to be so
Your assertion falls apart when I ask you if there is a Right™ answer to "Is the Earth flat?".
There are irrefutable answers to some questions. Others are backed up by a mountain of reproducaeble data, collected and re-checked over years, decades, by many people who go out of their way to disprove their own hypothesis and wriggle out of their own data. When they cannot reasonably do so, we are left with a fact.
Most of them are not perfect, immutable or immortal, but even if not, no rational person can accuse them of being wrong.
> Your assertion falls apart when I ask you if there is a Right™ answer to "Is the Earth flat?".
No it doesn't, I didn't claim there are no issues or questions where we know the answer. The empirical kind, like the one you present, are a good example for that. But policy isn't about whether the Earth is flat or whether climate change is real, but about how to tackle them in the best way possible, which depends on what you value.
> There are irrefutable answers to some questions.
I didn't claim that wasn't the case, though you can continue with your strawman if you'd like.
> Most of them are not perfect, immutable or immortal, but even if not, no rational person can accuse them of being wrong.
So what happens if we have multiple theories that no one can accuse of being wrong because we simply don't have enough insight into some very complicated matters? Which one do we put in practice? Or do we wait years before we gather the data for it, by which time it might be irrelevant anyway
> But policy isn't about whether the Earth is flat or whether climate change is real, but about how to tackle them in the best way possible, which depends on what you value.
I think the US is somewhat special at the moment in that it appears to have two dominant political factions which seem to be almost polar opposites in their goals and values. This is not the normal state of things in policymaking in this extreme form.
Also note that values are not as arbitrary as you make them out to. A large part of the history of civilization was in some way about determine which values are good ones to have and which aren't.
One standard which we honour today are the human rights.
Of course you can have a value system which rejects basic human rights, but then I don't see a lot of reason to respect people following that value system or make accomodations for them.
"This is implying there is always a Right™ answer or way to do something" suggests to me that you assert there is not a right answer when there certainly are in some cases. I definitely agree that some policies require nuance and changes with new data.
> So what happens if we have multiple theories that no one can accuse of being wrong because we simply don't have enough insight into some very complicated matters? Which one do we put in practice? Or do we wait years before we gather the data for it, by which time it might be irrelevant anyway
I wasn't addressing your statement that policy is often difficult to pin down, only the inference that there are no right answers.
We have been attempting our best to come towards the most correct answers for everything, since forever. To suggest all of a sudden that this method is irrelevant is odd. It is to suggest that we should no longer pursue truth and instead lay everything on the table and say it's all correct and you should just pick whatever makes you feel the best.
We can't pursue Truth where there is no objective Truth to be pursued, we have to figure out what a good course of action is right now, without spending centuries to solve a problem that destroys society tomorrow.
I wasn't really talking about free speech in particular, though it applies there as well. Is there a general consensus in philosophy on what The Truth About Free Speech is? Where the limits *need* to be? How to implement it in the context of large social media corporations?
There isn't some grand set of values that everyone has to agree with, btw, unless you're willing to sacrifice everyone else's mental frameworks and perspectives (which might be a sacrifice you're willing to take, but I guess not everyone is so keen on :) )
