Intellectual Humility in Public Discussion
Abstract
In this article, the authors analyze intellectual humility as a cognitive and a communicative virtue. Public discussions on controversial topics – religious and scientific debates included – are becoming an increasingly important part of social life. They are viewed as important for the future of democratic societies as political procedures traditionally associated with democracy. In order to make a public dialogue more beneficial for the society it is essential to understand what obstacles may arise in its way and what the possible strategies to overcome them are. One of such behavioral strategies is intellectual humility. Humility has a long history of being recognized as a virtue. The authors analyze its potential for contemporary societies, undertake etymological analysis and compare intellectual humility to other associated intellectual virtues and vices such as open-mindedness and intellectual hubris. The core point of this article is that prejudiced cognition is bound to become limited or outright false, whereas intellectually humble research and dialogue efforts lead to true understanding – both cognitive and interpersonal. Intellectual humility is perceived as an especially valuable asset for any researcher, administrator or public speaker.
Keywords: Intellectual humility, public dialogue, cognition, objectivity, intersubjectivity, science, religion, democracy, research ethics.
References
[1] Chaadaev, P. I. 1969. Philosophical letters and Apology of a Madman. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press.
[2] Christen, M., M. Alfano, M. and B. Robinson. 2014. “The Semantic Neighborhood of Intellectual Humility.” In Proceedings of the European Conference on Social Intelligence, edited by A. Herzig and E. Lorini E, 40-49.
[3] Church, I., and P. Samuelson. 2016. Intellectual Humility: An Introduction to the Philosophy and Science. Bloomsbury Publishing.
[4] Deffler, S. A., M. R. Leary and R. H. Hoyle. 2016. “Knowing what you know: Intellectual humility and judgments of recognition memory.” Personality and Individual Differences, 96: 255-259.
[5] Descartes, R. and D. A. Cress. 1993. Discourse on method; and, Meditations on first philosophy. Indianapolis, Hackett Pub. Co.
[6] Fasmer, M. 1986. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language. Vols. 1–4. Moscow: Progress.
[7] Krumrei-Mancuso, E. J., and S. V. Rouse. 2016. “The development and validation of the comprehensive intellectual humility scale.” Journal of Personality Assessment, 98 (2): 209-221.
[8] Ozhegov, S. I. 2006. The dictionary of Russian language: ab. 60 000 words and phraseological units. Moscow: LLC «Edition Oniks»: LLC» Edition Peace and education.
[9] Samuelson, P. L., M. J. Jarvinen, T. B. Paulus, I. M. Church, S. A. Hardy, and J. L. Barrett. 2015. “Implicit theories of intellectual virtues and vices: A focus on intellectual humility.” The Journal of Positive Psychology,10 (5): 389-406.
[10] Schwab, A. P. 2008. “Epistemic Humility and Medical Practice.” Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants, 18 (1): 20.
[11] Spiegel, J. S. 2012. “Open-mindedness and intellectual humility.” School Field, 10 (1): 27-38.
[12] Uzlaner, D. 2015. “The Dialogue between science and religion: modern democracy theory view.” State, religion and church in Russia and abroad, 1 (33).
[13] Whitcomb, D., H. Battaly, J. Baehr, and D. Howard‐Snyder. 2015. “Intellectual humility: Owning our limitations.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 94 (3):509- 539.