Ideological Diversity is not a Virtue

1A. In the last round I explained that contradicting values are not necessarily impossible. I've shown how Pro's standard of classical logic is not perfect; indeed paradoxes exist which show a flaw in his logic, which he has not challenged. In Philosophy 101 you learn logic; in Philosophy 201 you learn to throw out everything you learned about formal logic, because it's not necessarily the best, most perfect standard. I've exemplified two other branches of logic that make holding seemingly opposite ideals valid, including Non-dualism and Dialetheism which Pro has not contested. Instead he simply insists that we should accept the law of non-contradiction per classic logic standards, which is invalidated by my two other proposals (which he dropped) and my noting how classic logic is not necessarily perfect or complete. 1B. I noted, “If we accepted one ideology [free will and determinism] as definitively correct while dismissing the other, we may not have reached a conclusion that marries aspects of the two. ” Pro says this is totally irrelevant; if the correct conclusion is reached, then the diversity holds no value. However he has not actually addressed my argument at all. He said if the conclusion is reached, the diversity holds no value. .. but he never denied that the diversity helped reach the conclusion, meaning there was/is value in diversity even if it is not always equal value or value that is held forever. 1D. In the round before this, Pro claimed "If a moral agent seeks to hold an ideology, they are expressing that the ideology is a value to them, and thus, that they perceive it as furthering the good. " I responded that just because an ideology holds value to an individual, doesn't mean that it is in fact true or good, therefore diversity has merit. Pro says he made no claim to the contrary; however, highlighting that a moral agent seeks to further the good only means they are looking to further their own good or their perception of what is good. And in response, my point was that exposure to different ideas was useful whereas suggesting a singular idea was correct might inhibit change or progression. Pro continues, " If one is right, diversity only means that others must be wrong. " I've explained why this logic is completely flawed. Here's another example:Suppose I am a very regimented person who believes in strict focus and discipline in order to accomplish tasks at work. My ideology is to be very diligent and organized about scheduled breaks and a rigid timeline for checking off assignments. Now suppose my coworker had a completely different style and method of working. He might be more fluid, find it important to take longer breaks in order to be equally or more productive (and on his own timeline) while preferring to tackle his assignments in a different manner. If we both accomplish the same goals, but have different work ideologies, why is one of us definitively wrong? Pro has not explained. Pro writes, "I have shown that 'Ideological diversity is a virtue' is equivalent to saying that 'Faulty ideologies are desirable to hold' but this is not true. I've argued that there need not necessarily be a "false" ideology in diversity. Diversity might simply mean different, and maybe even contrary, but not necessarily in opposition to the same goals, i. e. my last coworker example. I pointed out that the resolution is not necessarily referring to a single person. Pro responded, "Sure, but to negate it requires a specific proposition set forth by a specific individual who adheres to the a priori rules of action I have laid out. " However I've explained how various things rely on diversity of opinion in order to improve the greater good. "If left unchecked, an academic field can become a cohesive moral community, creating a shared reality that subsequently blinds its members to morally or ideologically undesirable hypotheses and unanswered but important scientific questions. .. Since the enlightenment, scientists have thought of themselves as spreading light and pushing back the darkness. The metaphor is apt, but in a politically homogeneous field, a larger-than-optimal number of scientists shine their flashlights on ideologically important regions of the terrain. Doing so leaves many areas unexplored. Even worse, some areas become walled off, and inquisitive researchers risk ostracism if they venture in. Political diversity is likely to have a variety of positive effects by reducing the impact of confirmation bias and groupthink/majority consensus. Even research communities of highly intelligent and well-meaning individuals can fall prey to confirmation bias. .. Nobody has found a way to eradicate confirmation bias in individuals, but we can diversify the field to the point where individual viewpoint biases begin to cancel each other out" [1]. Moreover, consider the fact that politicians serve increasingly diverse communities with vastly different needs. We are a stronger, more unified country when everyone feels represented, and when our leadership includes the experiences and backgrounds of the people and their unique experiences it exemplifies another benefit of diversity. Suggesting that a singular ideology would be suitable for an entire group of people is just not logical, and Pro hasn't proven as such. Finally on this point, I presented another example in the last round to prove people could hold competing point of views simultaneously, a. k. a. cognitive dissonance [2]. I wrote, “Suppose one's goal is to pass the Bar exam. They could cheat and risk getting caught, or they can try passing on their own and risk failure. The goal is specified and yet what one ought to do is still a concern. ” Pro responded, "One would do that which leads to a state in which the exam is passed. Pragmatism is fully appropriate here. " This completely ignores the point that one might also hold the simultaneous view of #1 being a good, decent and moral person by not cheating; and #2 valuing pragmatism but not wanting to risk getting caught, which would mean one doesn't in fact pass the test. Pro's oversimplified response did not address this dissonance.2. Pro writes, "My arguments are aimed at proving that One Ideology which is correct must stand alone, and must be strived towards at all points. " However I've already explained how different ideologies can work best for different people, i. e. the best way to study, the best way to govern, etc. Pro has dropped my point here - that incorrect ideologies (assuming they are objectively incorrect) can still have value, just less value. I've explained that there is still value in the diversity of opinion; there is an inherent value in the discussion, exploration and acquired knowledge, practice and experience gained by challenging different ideas and considering various outcomes. Pro claims that these things are only instrumental in achieving the truth of one singular ideology. However this negates his own position as I've explained in the last round: In order for there to be value in negating diversity (value that Pro accepts does exist) then diversity needs to be present in the first place. Otherwise there is no scrutiny, no analysis and no gain at all. In response, Pro presents the following analogy - Say that a plague renders millions on the brink of death. A cure is found and distributed. The curing of the disease is beneficial, but it is not the case that the disease itself deserves kudos for requiring it. Battling the disease is done to destroy the disease and enter a state where the disease is no more. The virtue is found in this eradication, not in the disease itself. Once again, Pro acknowledges the virtue is found in the eradication. He then goes on to suggest I am praising the *disease* when in fact I am praising the eradication. If the eradication (only possible through diversity) helps treat or better yet prevent new diseases, or introduce technology or discoveries that have more utility and value on balance to those lives lost by said disease, then the pursuit of knowledge was in fact helpful and worthwhile. I provided an analogy of my own in the last round. “Pro's goal and value might be to establish truth, whereas my goal and value might be to pass time, sharpen my debate skills or have fun. The fact that Pro and I might disagree ideologically (as we are doing now in this debate) still has value, because it allows me to accomplish all 3 of those goals. ” Pro claims that in this example, it is not ideological diversity that provides value. "It is the argumentation. It is clear that my opponent cannot know whether I am playing devil’s advocate or being sincere – it doesn’t matter. Thus, my actual ideology doesn’t matter, and therefore value must be determined by something outside of my ideology and whether or not it’s different than my opponent’s. " Once again Pro concedes his own argument. Even if he did in fact agree with me (so his real ideology is irrelevant) the fact that a different ideology exists in the first place is necessary for the argument to occur. You can't successfully or realistically argue the exact same point of view. Therefore, since Pro has acknowledged that I might find value in the debate itself, he is right that his ideology does not matter, however, the fact that he argues for a different ideology does. ConclusionPro insists, "If what is right changes, the scenario itself changes. " That's perfectly fine. What I said was that since what is "right" in a given scenario can change (something that Pro accepts), it's all the more reason to value diversity and different approaches and outcomes to different problems. That way people are more informed and prepared on the best way to handle various situations regardless of circumstance. [1] . https://judithcurry.com...[2] . http://www.simplypsychology.org...