The Right to be Wrong

k 2020

The Right to be Wrong

ONDRÁČEK, Tomáš

Základní údaje

Originální název

The Right to be Wrong

Autoři

ONDRÁČEK, Tomáš (203 Česká republika, garant, domácí)

Vydání

Reasons, Citizens and Institutions. International Conference on Argumentation and Public Policy, 2020

Další údaje

Jazyk

angličtina

Typ výsledku

Prezentace na konferencích

Obor

50204 Business and management

Stát vydavatele

Česká republika

Utajení

není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství

Odkazy

URL

Kód RIV

RIV/00216224:14560/20:00115399

Organizační jednotka

Ekonomicko-správní fakulta

Klíčová slova anglicky

right to be wrong; critical discussion; critical rationalism; paternalism; argumentation in public domain; argumentation of institutions; argumentation of organizations

Změněno: 9. 3. 2020 15:32, Mgr. et Mgr. Tomáš Ondráček, Ph.D.

Anotace

V originále

What does it mean to be wrong about something? For purposes of this talk, I will define that to be wrong means to carry out actions that do not result in intended outcomes or they have unintended effects more harmful then it is acceptable.I will argue that there is the right to be wrong in any critical discussion and that there are two basic forms of it. The first form is regarding the limited abilities of the parties involved. Even though parties succeed in resolving the difference in their opinion, they still might be wrong. Parties are restricted regarding their knowledge and other cognitive capacities. The second form of right to be wrong is due to the nature of critical discussion itself. Parties are limited to reasonable means. It is not permissible in critical discussion to use brute force on others to make them follow the rules or stay in the discussion. Furthermore, if one party is not further interested in the given discussion and the resolution of a difference of opinions is not achieved, another party cannot claim success in defending its position, and this position is justified regarding critical rationalism. I will argue that this poses a severe problem for any form of paternalism. Although this problem is not unsolvable, if we want to follow critical rationalism, there is a strong demand to be able to accept outcomes that seems to be and even might be harmful and damaging. We have to be able to take results which are adopted in due process or challenge the process itself in meta-discussions.There are two crucial questions that I want to address: Do also institutions have the right to be wrong, and in what forms? Is this right applicable when the stakes are high?

Citovat

ONDRÁČEK, Tomáš. The Right to be Wrong. In Reasons, Citizens and Institutions. International Conference on Argumentation and Public Policy. 2020.

@proceedings{1634038,
   author = {Ondráček, Tomáš},
   booktitle = {Reasons, Citizens and Institutions. International Conference on Argumentation and Public Policy},
   keywords = {right to be wrong; critical discussion; critical rationalism; paternalism; argumentation in public domain; argumentation of institutions; argumentation of organizations},
   language = {eng},
   title = {The Right to be Wrong},
   url = {https://publicpolicyargument.eu/events/wroclaw2020/},
   year = {2020}
}

TY  - CONF
ID  - 1634038
AU  - Ondráček, Tomáš
PY  - 2020
TI  - The Right to be Wrong
KW  - right to be wrong
KW  - critical discussion
KW  - critical rationalism
KW  - paternalism
KW  - argumentation in public domain
KW  - argumentation of institutions
KW  - argumentation of organizations
UR  - https://publicpolicyargument.eu/events/wroclaw2020/
L2  - https://publicpolicyargument.eu/events/wroclaw2020/
N2  - What does it mean to be wrong about something? For purposes of this talk, I will define that to be wrong means to carry out actions that do not result in intended outcomes or they have unintended effects more harmful then it is acceptable.I will argue that there is the right to be wrong in any critical discussion and that there are two basic forms of it. The first form is regarding the limited abilities of the parties involved. Even though parties succeed in resolving the difference in their opinion, they still might be wrong. Parties are restricted regarding their knowledge and other cognitive capacities. The second form of right to be wrong is due to the nature of critical discussion itself. Parties are limited to reasonable means. It is not permissible in critical discussion to use brute force on others to make them follow the rules or stay in the discussion. Furthermore, if one party is not further interested in the given discussion and the resolution of a difference of opinions is not achieved, another party cannot claim success in defending its position, and this position is justified regarding critical rationalism. I will argue that this poses a severe problem for any form of paternalism. Although this problem is not unsolvable, if we want to follow critical rationalism, there is a strong demand to be able to accept outcomes that seems to be and even might be harmful and damaging. We have to be able to take results which are adopted in due process or challenge the process itself in meta-discussions.There are two crucial questions that I want to address: Do also institutions have the right to be wrong, and in what forms? Is this right applicable when the stakes are high?
ER  -

ONDRÁČEK, Tomáš. The Right to be Wrong. In \textit{Reasons, Citizens and Institutions. International Conference on Argumentation and Public Policy}. 2020.

Podrobný výpis o publikaci