The Vollbrecht case: The principle of maximum mistrust

The philosopher Donald Davidson once stated that we can only understand linguistic utterances if we follow the "principle of charity".

It requires us to attribute as much understanding and reality as possible to the statements made by others.

We usually assume that people mean what they say and have a reason for doing so, such as by referring to some fact.

We derive maximum meaning from the words and thoughts of others, Davidson argued, when we interpret them in ways that maximize our agreement with them.

The exceptions are obvious.

When it comes to advertising, or party speeches, or Vladimir Putin, we are more careful about what we say.

In everyday life, however, when someone announces that they are waiting for the bus, we naturally assume that there is a bus and the speaker is neither a spy pretending to be waiting for the bus, nor a madman who is in his Bathroom waiting for the bus.

Strategy of unconditional conflict avoidance

So far, so philosophical.

In many debates things are different.

Someone says, "Biologically there are only two sexes," and immediately the principle of maximum distrust is applied.

It is an attack on transsexuals, their right to exist is denied, they are reviled as not intended by nature.

Nothing was said about this in the upper school lecture on reproductive gender equality that the biologist Marie-Luise Vollbrecht wanted to give at the "Long Night of Science" at the Humboldt University.

However, a legal working group that described itself as “critical” had the worst fears and alerted the university.

For their part, they made use of the principle of maximum distrust and interpreted the protest as a prelude to possibly violent demonstrations and counter-demonstrations.

Danger ahead: the lecture was canceled, postponed for security reasons, as it was said.

One wonders whether the university management is aware that this strategy of unconditional conflict avoidance before even a single incident has occurred creates clear incentives for further riots.

Lies are also involved

More than 100,000 people have now listened to the lecture on YouTube.

The attempt to withdraw his theses from the public was a spectacular failure.

The renaming to "working group of short-sighted lawyers" would be conceivable according to their own standards.

Or was it about the well-being of a political action?

If the student council now calls for students to come forward if they don't feel safe in the presence of the biologist, that shows the heights to which malicious misunderstandings can be carried.

The claim that the biologist attacked and "personally threatened" people in her lecture is a lie.

The common assumption should be that a lecture can only be criticized if it has been delivered.

The opponents set Vollbrechts overruled.

They knew in advance what the biologist would say, which is why it is logical that they find statements in the lecture that were not actually made in it.

Abstract teachings at hand

Others already recognize in Vollbrecht's introduction that the lecture wants to clear up misunderstandings that arise from the confusion of "sex" (biological) and "gender" (cultural) in an emotional debate about the number of genders, an arrogance.

Some humanities scholars, for whom gender is “socially constructed”, are reluctant to be told anything about nature by biologists.

Abstractly, the instruction is given that nature does not exist in itself and that biology is also subject to social influences.

It is not clear to what extent this cunning is suitable for relativizing the evolutionary biological findings.

After all, one will distinguish between stable, viable and less reliable constructions.

Therefore, from the assertion that the distinction between man and woman does not reflect everything there is in terms of gender roles and feelings, it does not follow that the attributions are completely arbitrary and a danger to women's rights.

A philosopher once said “anything goes”, “if it goes”, added a sociologist: “if it works”.

What hopefully does not prevail is that malicious style of argument, which always assumes the darkest motives and enormous errors, and which takes every statement to the extreme.

He would be the end of the discussion.

Because a discussion differs from an argument in that it is conducted with the opponents instead of demanding approval.