Rather than doing something useful, I feel like writing a thread that's been on my mind for a while. You will not be shocked to hear that it's related to epistemology. Yes, I'm on that old bullshit again. So, let's talk about arguments.

There's been lots of talk about free speech lately. One way of framing the merits of free speech is that when a liberal democracy has a dispute, within itself, free speech ensures that all POVs are heard & represented. That increases the likelihood of a good result.

That is a point about how liberal democracies should *wage* arguments. We should hear from as many people as possible; no one should be scared to offer their opinion. Fine. Granted. That's epistemologically healthy.

But I would put it to you that that's only half the story. Liberal democracies also need ways to *end* arguments. When one side obviously has the right of it, there needs to be some way to wrap it up, to incorporate the winning argument into our shared knowledge base & act on it.