Taking apart the academic paper that celebrates closed-mindedness

James Lindsay, who researches the roots of social justice zealotry, observed that, “[s]o far as I know, there’s not some specific piece of scholarship that closes the Woke off to debate, like a single paper or book explaining why they don’t do it” (2020). We now have that paper. It is titled “Pragmatism as a Mediator–Seeking an Illusory Harmony?” (2023) and was written by the Finnish scholar Sami Pihlström. I examine Pihlström's stance and show why it is epistemically, ethically, and politically disastrous. By cutting itself off from evidence, a refusal to listen leaves wrongfully accused persons no means of exonerating themselves. Moreover, given that concepts like racism now encompass beliefs and acts that many rightly consider sensible, a policy of silence risks dismissing implausibly large numbers of people as immoral. We academics should therefore think very carefully about the consequences of closed-mindedness, especially since it risks increasing the likelihood of conflict.