Stillness in the Storm

An Agent for Consciousness Evolution

The Dangers of Compelled Belief

By Leave a Comment

Spread the love

(Donald Boudreaux) Jay Bhattacharya recently issued a powerful warning against pending legislation in California designed to compel physicians to adhere to the official science on COVID. Here’s Bhattacharya:

Related Wisdom, Loneliness, and Gut Microbiota are Linked

Source – The Pulse

by Donald Boudreaux, May 27th, 2022

“According to California Assembly Bill 2098, physicians who deviate from an authorized set of beliefs would do so at risk to their medical license. The bill, written by Assemblyman Evan Low, a Democrat in Silicon Valley, and currently making its way through the California Legislature, is motivated by the idea that practicing doctors are spreading “misinformation” about the risks of Covid, its treatment, and the Covid vaccine. It declares that physicians and surgeons who “disseminate or promote misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines” shall be subject to “disciplinary action,” which could result in the loss of the doctor’s medical license.

The language of the bill itself is intentionally vague about what constitutes “misinformation,” which makes it even more damaging. Doctors, fearing loss of their livelihoods, will need to hew closely to the government line on Covid science and policy, even if that line does not track the scientific evidence. After all, until recently, top government science bureaucrats like Dr. Fauci claimed that the idea that Covid came from a Wuhan laboratory was a conspiracy theory, rather than a valid hypothesis that should be open to discussion. The government’s track record on discerning Covid truths is poor.”

Bhattacharya – a professor at the Stanford Medical School and a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration – does not exaggerate when he predicts that “[t]he ultimate effect of the bill will be to chill public criticism by California doctors of mistaken government public health diktats since few will want to put their licenses in the hands of the very public health officials with whom they disagree over the interpretation of science. Even legitimate dissent from public health orthodoxy by licensed doctors may be excised from the public square as a consequence.”

How could there come to pass any outcome other than the frightful, dystopian one predicted by Bhattacharya? Yet reflection on this rhetorical question raises another question that’s not at all rhetorical: What is becoming of liberal civilization?

Perhaps my non-rhetorical question seems histrionic. I think that it is, unfortunately, not. A bedrock value of liberal modernity is that no human being ever will – because no human being ever can – possess truth so surely that he or she is to be trusted to compel any other human being to accept his or her propositions as Truth. Capital-T Truth – Truth as understood by God and established for all time – might or might not exist; either way, no mortal or group of mortals can be trusted to lay claim to possessing it.

Persuasion, Not Coercion

For the past three centuries, in places infused with Enlightenment values, the norm for the discovery and dissemination of knowledge has been persuasion rather than compulsion. Nicolaus has a new idea about the circulation of planets. William has a new idea about the circulation of blood. Adam has a new idea about the circulation of goods and services in commerce.

How are we to know if these ideas have merit? Simple: We allow these ideas to be articulated without obstruction, and we allow other people – any other people – to join in the discussion. If Adam wants me to accept his idea, he’s not allowed to club me over the head or seize my property if I reject his idea. He must talk to me (or write; same thing really). He must persuade me.

There’s something else Adam isn’t allowed to do. He’s not allowed to stop Karl, or Maynard, or Donald, or Bernie, or Alexandria, or anyone else from talking to me. Adam, being human, would perhaps prefer to be able to muzzle the mouths or clog the keyboards of those who express ideas that contradict his own. That way it would be so much easier for him to persuade me that his ideas really are the best.

But an invisible and impartial spectator perched on Adam’s shoulder informs him of a reality that, ironically, comes as close as any in this vale to being a Truth: No idea is so surely complete or correct that it might not be improved, or even discredited, by encountering different and better ideas.

Here’s something else Adam, if he is wise, knows: If his ideas are worthy, he doesn’t need to force them on other people with coercion. Their worthiness gives these ideas a pretty good advantage naturally. Adam, being wise, gives a knowing thumbs-up to H.L. Mencken’s terse observation that “The kind of man who demands that government enforce his ideas is always the kind whose ideas are idiotic.”

Of course, because we humans are imperfect, it’s possible that Adam’s excellent ideas will nevertheless be widely rejected in favor of ideas that Adam and his many wise and well-read friends fervently believe to be inferior. But in a society that rejects coercion as a means of promoting ideas, wise Adam knows also that, over time, if his ideas really are the best available, they will at least always enjoy the prospect of one day being accepted.

There’s yet another piece of knowledge – one especially crucial – known to wise Adam, which is this: If he were today to resort to coercion to press his ideas, he’d thereby pave the path for Karl or Alexandria, when they gain positions of power, to use coercion to impose ‘acceptance’ of their ideas. And not only does Adam wisely fear that particular outcome, he understands that he would then have no standing to object to Karl’s or Alexandria’s resort to coercion as the means of achieving ‘acceptance’ of their ideas.

Wisdom Waning

Until the recent outbreaks of wokeness and the COVID-times’ mindless rendition of “Follow the Science,” the above reflections would have been trite. Or rather, these reflections would have seemed trite. Yet the very fact that reflections that would have been labeled in, say, 2012 as too obvious for words are in 2022 substantive and germane speaks to the importance of repeating these reflections.

After all, were the wisdom of these reflections widely enough accepted in 2022, legislation of the sort now pending in California – assuming that it was even proposed in the first place – would have so little prospect of enactment that Jay Bhattacharya would have felt no need to spend valuable time warning of it.

Liberal, enlightened values are never so firmly entrenched that their widespread acceptance can safely be taken for granted. The propositions in which these values are grounded must be constantly polished and refined, and the values themselves must be incessantly repeated, defended, and championed.

In her 2021 book, Bettering Humanomics, Deirdre McCloskey continues to make the case that the way we treat each other – including through government policies – is largely determined by the way we talk to each other. “The word’s the thing,” she says. What we say, how we say it, and who is given respectful hearings all matter very much.

Change the talking for the better, change society for the better; change the talking for the worse, change society for the worse. To coercively obstruct discussion and debate is unquestionably to change the talking for the worse. And as McCloskey documents, such change can happen rather quickly.

We Americans are fortunate inheritors of the enlightened liberalism not only of Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison, but also of thinkers such as Hume, Adam Smith, Tocqueville, Mill, Acton, and Hayek. What these statesmen and philosophers said and wrote mattered greatly. But however much we might applaud these expressed sensibilities, we must recognize that they are not self-reinforcing.

On the loose always are illiberal sentiments, expressed by the arrogant, the ignorant, the unenlightened, and the authoritarian. To establish their utopias, enemies of liberalism will never hesitate to squelch free expression. We liberals, therefore, must forever be ready, understanding the power of words, to challenge with our own words these assaults on freedom of expression and on open, peaceful discourse and debate.

Stillness in the Storm Editor: Why did we post this?

The news is important to all people because it is where we come to know new things about the world, which leads to the development of more life goals that lead to life wisdom. The news also serves as a social connection tool, as we tend to relate to those who know about and believe the things we do. With the power of an open truth-seeking mind in hand, the individual can grow wise and the collective can prosper.

– Justin

Not sure how to make sense of this? Want to learn how to discern like a pro? Read this essential guide to discernment, analysis of claims, and understanding the truth in a world of deception: 4 Key Steps of Discernment – Advanced Truth-Seeking Tools.

Stillness in the Storm Editor’s note: Did you find a spelling error or grammatical mistake? Send an email to corrections@stillnessinthestorm.com, with the error and suggested correction, along with the headline and url. Do you think this article needs an update? Or do you just have some feedback? Send us an email at sitsshow@gmail.com. Thank you for reading.

Source:

https://thepulse.one/2022/05/27/the-dangers-of-compelled-belief/

DIRECT DONATION

Support our work! (Avoid Big Tech PayPal and Patreon)

Notices and Disclaimers

We need $2000 per month to pay our costs. Help us one time or recurring. (DONATE HERE)

To sign up for RSS updates, paste this link (https://stillnessinthestorm.com/feed/) into the search field of your preferred RSS Reader or Service (such as Feedly or gReader).

Subscribe to Stillness in the Storm Newsletter

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” – Aristotle

This website is supported by readers like you.

If you find our work of value, consider making a donation. 

Stillness in the Storm DISCLAIMER: All articles, videos, statements, claims, views and opinions that appear anywhere on this site, whether stated as theories or absolute facts, are always presented by Stillness in the Storm as unverified—and should be personally fact checked and discerned by you, the reader. Any opinions or statements herein presented are not necessarily promoted, endorsed, or agreed to by Stillness, those who work with Stillness, or those who read Stillness. Any belief or conclusion gleaned from content on this site is solely the responsibility of you the reader to substantiate, fact check, and no harm comes to you or those around you. And any actions taken by those who read material on this site is solely the responsibility of the acting party. You are encouraged to think carefully and do your own research. Nothing on this site is meant to be believed without question or personal appraisal.

Content Disclaimer: All content on this site marked with “source – [enter website name and url]” is not owned by Stillness in the Storm. All content on this site that is not originally written, created, or posted as original, is owned by the original content creators, who retain exclusive jurisdiction of all intellectual property rights. Any copyrighted material on this site was shared in good faith, under fair use or creative commons. Any request to remove copyrighted material will be honored, provided proof of ownership is rendered. Send takedown requests to feedback@stillnessinthestorm.com.

What is our mission? Why do we post what we do?

Our mission here is to curate (share) articles and information that we feel is important for the evolution of consciousness. Most of that information is written or produced by other people and organizations, which means it does not represent our views or opinions as managing staff of Stillness in the Storm. Some of the content is written by one of our writers and is clearly marked accordingly. Just because we share a CNN story that speaks badly about the President doesn’t mean we’re promoting anti-POTUS views. We’re reporting on the fact as it was reported, and that this event is important for us to know so we can better contend with the challenges of gaining freedom and prosperity. Similarly, just because we share a pro/anti-[insert issue or topic] content, such as a pro-second amendment piece or an anti-military video doesn’t mean we endorse what is said. Again, information is shared on this site for the purpose of evolving consciousness. In our opinion, consciousness evolves through the process of accumulating knowledge of the truth and contemplating that knowledge to distill wisdom and improve life by discovering and incorporating holistic values. Thus, sharing information from many different sources, with many different perspectives is the best way to maximize evolution. What’s more, the mastery of mind and discernment doesn’t occur in a vacuum, it is much like the immune system, it needs regular exposure to new things to stay healthy and strong. If you have any questions as to our mission or methods please reach out to us at feedback@stillnessinthestorm.com.

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *