I liked the cow analogy Mike.
I think that what I’m more concerned about by refusing or limiting certain dialogue in philosophy is that this is precisely the modern method for many people to actually keep their views alive in some respects. I am referring, in particular, to the idea of not giving platform for other people to even present altering views. I was noticing how the NRA uses this very effectively, for instance, in order to prevent dissident ideology from affecting them. Notice how frustrating it is for investigative reporters to attempt to get interviews with anyone who has severe argumentative fault should they be challenged? The lack of being able to get sincere answers tend to leave people with an inability to logically justify a proper rationale for certainty of conviction.
The main justification for the Miranda rights was due to the idea that one who is not given notice for charge is being abused by being punished (through detainment) by what is not known. The power of purposefully ignoring someone I think can be more harsh than direct physical assault because you can at least have a chance to defend yourself directly than to have someone harm you indirectly without you being able to see where it’s coming from.
I’m certain most of us can relate to this. I am personally still finding discomfort with a recent breakup in a relationship almost two years ago now because I don’t know why we broke up and she won’t tell me. It makes you try to fill in the blanks with all the various endless possibilities and never any certainty. I’d rather be told directly even the most shallow and unjust reason for our breakup than nothing at all.
And this is what I think is harmful about closing the door to even the most ridiculous logic or rationale from other people by closing or limiting particular discussions. I think we need to elevate it as a duty to respond to others in all areas of formal dialectic. This is an emotional reason, among others, I don’t support using falsification as a justification to rule out non-scientific or pseudo-scientific discussions that some feel should be used as a means to weed out apparently futile positions.