Why free speech is key to resolving the crisis of our polarised society

Institutions like the Royal Society of Edinburgh, where complex issues can be discussed openly and respectfully, are vital, writes its outgoing president, Professor Sir John Ball

The state of public conversation is in crisis. In an increasingly complex and interconnected world, faced with correspondingly complex issues, some of which threaten its very survival, reasoned discussion is all too often drowned out by those with polarised views shouting the loudest.

As a research mathematician, I am always trying to solve problems. Usually they are far too difficult, and I fail dismally. But on the rare occasions when I succeed, I know that I have done so, because mathematics is a subject in which the solution to a problem is either right or wrong.

Of course, the majority of problems facing society are not like this. They have no unique right answer, with, at best, a consensus emerging as a solution, a consensus that may change in the light of events.

People sit on the Areopagus hill, where the ancient Athenians once held trials (Picture: Louisa Gouliamaki) | AFP via Getty Images

Enlightenment principles

In providing a neutral forum in which such difficult issues can be carefully addressed, institutions like the Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE) – of which I am about to stand down as president at the end of my term, to be replaced by the very capable and experienced Sir Anton Muscatelli – can play a vital role. As Scotland’s National Academy, the RSE has the convening power to bring together leading experts in all subjects, so that complex questions can be tackled and illuminated, and ways forward found.

In so doing, a challenge is to maintain independence, so that we do not allow the tone of public conversation, or even the political conversation, to unmoor us from the central goal of making knowledge useful for the public good. The Enlightenment principles of free inquiry and free expression are paramount here.

The post-Second World War order in Europe and the northern hemisphere is shifting rapidly beneath our feet. The challenge of preserving independence of thought and expression has never been more acutely visible or necessary, reinforcing the need for spaces in which we can throw around ideas, counterpoints, suggestions, without the spectre of being labelled as right or wrong. This is the sort of crucible we need so that we can figure things out.

Assisted dying debate

An example is the RSE’s recent event, “A dialogue on dying: examining assisted death in Scotland”. The aim of this was to provide a neutral space for balanced discussion to encourage public engagement, inviting those who attended to re-examine their own views on the subject.

Issues like palliative care, questions arising from do-not-resuscitate forms, the level of medical intervention, and the level of engagement that the Scottish Government has invited, were all raised among a myriad of others. The Assisted Dying Bill is moving through the process in Holyrood, so it is still very much a topic that demands attention and, whatever the ultimate outcome, it will require constant vigilance.

Debate is how we view much of the world, especially the political one. Television debates before the US and UK elections dominate conversations for weeks before and after, and a not inconsiderable portion of the news cycle focusses on First Minister’s Questions or Prime Minister’s Questions.

But while debates are important, they carry with them the concept of winners and losers and encourage polarisation. And they are not suited to the discussion of complex and multi-faceted issues such as climate change, mental health, food security, biodiversity, migration, arms control, or the control of artificial intelligence.

No winners or losers

For addressing such complex issues, surely a better model is dialectic and discourse, informed as appropriate by the evidence of experts who have devoted years to the study in question. The aim should be to provide an open forum for discussion where there are no winners and losers, where there is respect for opposing perspectives and opinions, where unconventional ideas can be floated without fear of derision and inconvenient facts can be highlighted, and in which a patient conversation can take place.

In mathematics research, and indeed all research, the choice of what problems to work on is of key importance. It is all too easy to spend large amounts of time investigating questions of little interest to others. However, sometimes, esoteric questions are subsequently seen to be visionary and become of mainstream interest, so that the freedom to work on anything is important to preserve.

Likewise, for academies such as the RSE, there is a choice to be made on what topics to concentrate on. What are the important questions for society? Where can we make a difference? How can the outcomes of discussion be taken forward?

But at the same time, we must avoid the danger of being prescriptive, so that new topics can emerge organically. Here we rely on our broad fellowship, spanning all walks of life, and on the communities of interest that link them together.

The ancient Greeks had the Areopagus – a rocky outcrop overlooking the Acropolis where trials were said to have been held. While the RSE cannot claim such a grand stage, the point is that a place to convene to discuss issues of great importance to Scottish society, and more widely, can hold as much importance as the discussion itself.

There is no shortage of issues of public interest and importance that require this kind of open forum, in which people can speak their minds and maybe have their own minds changed as ideas are exposed to the open air, without fear or favour. The Overton Window – the scope of topics and opinions that are deemed acceptable - needs to be as open as we can plausibly make it.

Professor Sir John Ball is the outgoing president of the Royal Society of Edinburgh