Contestable v. Sacred Beliefs

Making a contestable belief sacred is a shame and a shame. In this excellent post, Arnold Kling distinguishes between contestable and sacred beliefs. A belief is contestable when debate over it is allowed. A belief is sacred when debate violates social norms so much that any dissenting opinion marks the speaker as a pariah. An example of a contestable belief is the belief that increasing the government's role in the provision of health care would improve the standard of living in the US. A current sacred belief in the US is that slavery is bad. By treating a contestable belief as though it is sacred, proponents are able to stifle dissent and discussion and thereby limit useful public discourse.

One example is the belief that wages for women are lower than for men only because of discrimination. Treating the belief as contestable opens the door for discussion, debate, and analysis of the possible reasons that some groups earn more on average than other groups and the role that each of these reasons plays in creating the disparity between men and women. Treating the belief as sacred, on the other hand, forecloses the discussion, debate, and analysis. People who hold the belief respond to people who express an opposing view as sexists or speaking from their privileged position. Foreclosing this discussion, debate, and analysis is, in my opinion, prevents both establishing that women suffer from discrimination and identifying public policies that are most likely to reduce effectively the discrimination they face. 

Of course, what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. Some people hold the sacred belief that wage differentials are only the result of market forces, education and employment choices, and productivity. They respond to people who oppose the view by calling them socialist or ignorant. Once again, the result is a cessation of useful public discourse.