The Enlightenment that produced so many liberal concepts, like liberty & free speech, also ushered in the age of science. A scientist starts with an idea, a hypothesis, that might explain an observable phenomena, then determines an experiment that would test that assumption, and if the results match the prediction, the hypothesis is a proven theory and becomes accepted science. A hypothesis doesn’t use the word “probably:” science is a statement of fact not conjecture. However, if an outcome occurs that goes contrary to the theory, even if it is only a 1-in-1000 event, the hypothesis must be edited to include the aberration and tested again, or it becomes invalid: this is the basis of the old misquoted adage “the exception disproves the rule.”

But debate is not science, and a statement can be assumed true even if there are examples counter to a generalized hypothesis. This distinction is subtle so it’s often exploited to discredit the generalization: an opponent will cite a single exception to insist the whole concept is false. It’s difficult to tell if those people are being intentionally obstinate, or simply stupid, but they can stymie any further conversation of important social hypotheses.

Ver todos los episodios