Well, some of the propositions on his list have actually been quite widely debated. Others are sort of novel points of view, not heresies which have been suppressed. The rest are mostly just things people generally think false.
Also, I don't think science has ever been a leading source of heterodox ideas, still less universities. The real reason we know of so many famous scientific rebels historically is just because the academic establishment has been so consistently conservative. You kind of had to be a rebel.
Hard not to think he really means society should pay more attention to Pinker's ideas. It would make more sense if he just said which ideas he wants us to accept - unless it's the whole list?
A long, thoughtful, interesting article in the Chicago Sun-Times? Now *THATS* a dangerous idea. That rag hasn't been worth anything since Mike Royko left them.
Has the state of the environment improved in the last 50 years?
That doesn't sound like a particularly dangerous question, nor any sort of taboo, neither
This appears to have been written as the preface to a book, so Pinker is probably listing ideas in the book rather than his own. I think I can even guess whose some of them are, though I not sure whether the one about religion killing more people than Nazism is Dawkins or Hitchens.
Anyway, I say eek the whole thread and banninate everyone involved in it.
Bugger, except me.
Yup, Plegmund has it.
"This essay was first posted at Edge (www.edge.org) and is reprinted with permission. It is the Preface to the book 'What Is Your Dangerous Idea?: Today's Leading Thinkers on the Unthinkable,' published by HarperCollins."
A good chunk of the last 1/3rd of the article deals with why there *are* actually some dangerous ideas which should be treated with caution: they may be wrong, intentionally misleading, have dangerous consequences, and be so incompatible with other widely trusted beliefs as to justify viewing them with suspicion.
So the real question may be not if there are dangerous ideas, but what to do about them. Obviously we want to know if an idea is true, even if it is potentially 'dangerous'. However we also want to avoid unintentionally lending credence to a wrong idea.
Its interesting to note here that one example Pinker gives here of the mistreatment of someone with a 'dangerous' idea is the controversy surrounding Harvard president Lawrence Summers statements about the underrepresentation of women in science and math. While it seems that Summers made his statements with a fairly low profile at a closed conference and couched them in softening language, I don't think he can be fairly portrayed as a person innocently offering a 'dangerous' idea. His own remarks seem to indicate that he understood that women face serious social barriers in these fields, and his attempt to dilute concern about these barriers by pointing to 'innate' differences in abilities was rightly called out for being disingenuous.
And Pinker himself was involved in this controversy, suggesting he might be wearing the same "intellectual blinkers" he accuses others of wearing when they are involved in a debate.
/hopes rhetoric professor never, ever sees this page and gets ideas about writing assignment
So what are the answers to all of those questions? You can't get me all interested then not answer them!
Lara, here are the answers:
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Tes
No
Sometimes
No
Does this matter to you for some reason?
Yes
No, Lindsay.
No
Sadly, no.
Yes
Proportion? Why not just in raw numbers? Poorly worded question.
No
No
No
Yes
Basically already exists
Sure, what could possibly go wrong?
Those answers look dangerous to me.
EnquiringDangerous minds want to know!
There are no stupid questions.
Only stupid people asking them.
Oh really, BlueHorse? Who are you to be ...hey, wait a cotton pickin' minute!
I rest my case.
What if a stupid person had a question about brains?
EnquiringDangerous minds want to know!