On Saying and Doing

Editorial * Usually a high degree of correspondence between what one says and what one does is considered a virtue-honesty, as opposed to misrepresentation. The obvious exception is a correspondence of antisocial talk and behavior, which is considered evil because one does the vile deeds one has foretold. Honesty about evil intentions does not reverse the virtue of honesty itself, but neither does it sanctify the evil that is done. We do not admire terrorists for doing us harm, even though they may have been honest in saying that they are going to kill us. We do not admire children for doing antisocial acts, even though they may have told us truthfully that they were going to do such acts if given a chance. Sometimes saying and doing are at odds because what one says is simply impossible to do. It is easy to come up with examples, some of which we might call psychotic talk, or the kinds of statements associated with severe mental illness such as schizophrenia: "I will become invisible and stop all the terrorist acts against the United States. " "I will have a cure for all emotional disorders within a year. " "Let me show you how to trisect an angle. " Just as silly are some of the propositions about general and special education that intelligent and sane people make or take seriously (see Kauffman, 2002, for elaboration). Gross exaggeration, sometimes done for laughs, also falls into this category of discrepancy between saying and doing. Saying and doing often are misaligned by misguided attempts at egalitarianism. Statements supporting the equal usefulness of ideas often are made as part of an appeal to work for social justice. ("Social justice" in the context of appeals for nondiscrimination among ideas apparently means that all ideas are taken with equal seriousness.) But the consequences of negating the superiority of rationality and science in the Enlightenment tradition are negative and profound for any effort to achieve substantive equality among people-what their lives are like, not just what we or they say about their lives. Mira Nanda (1998), explained why the Third World should refuse the ostensible "gift" of post-- modern perspectives: So the reason that we-the dogged advocates of scientific temper in non-- Western societies-must reject the privilege of having our traditional knowledge considered at par with science is clear: the project of different and equal sciences for different people completely negates our project of science for all people. We prefer our much maligned universalistic project because we are not interested in a supposed cognitive equality of different cultures but, rather, in substantive equality for all people in terms of healthier, fuller, and freer lives. We prefer the cold, objective facts of science to the comfortable, situated knowledge of our ancestors for the simple reason that we refuse to subordinate what is good to what is ours. (p. 299) The democracy of ideas (i.e., the argument that all ideas are equal) is incompatible with the idea of political democracy, which requires identifying ideas that are better than competing ideas. The better ideas must be given preference to achieve social justice-- that is, substantive fairness to people (see Conquest, 2000; Kernan, 1999; Kakutani, 2002; Sokal & Bricmont, 1998). And although universities often must tolerate silly ideas, this does not imply that all ideas should be considered equal (see Fuchs & Fuchs, 2001; Kernan, 1999). "Every idea or piece of knowledge worth having is, in part, a response to ideas or knowledge less worth having. Refuting a bad argument makes a good argument stronger" (Menand, 2002, p. 34). Judgment or rationality in the Enlightenment sense-discrimination among ideas, telling the good from the bad and the best from the good-is necessary to treat people fairly. Such rationality is required even to discriminate fairness from unfairness, the helpful from the unhelpful. We need rational and scientific thinking to help us create a civil society in which kindness and fairness prevail. …