Blogging and Intellectual Honesty

I've recently had an online dispute with a blogger (The site and the writer isn't important), I'm sure my posts were polite, thorough and thoughtful responses to his arguments but they were simply not published. No form of refutation was offered. Discussion along with this blogger's mind is apparently closed.

Maybe its just my academic training (philosophy) but something seems odd about running a blog and not posting comments, or rather, not publishing comments that disagree with your article. The phrase "publish and be damned" really ought to be the guiding principle. Well at least is should be if you're honest.

Perhaps I've simply got the mucky end of the stick but I don't think so. In my mind the only reason for blogging is to share your opinions with a wider audience and the corollary to that is to have the integrity to publish all responses, even if it means putting material on your blog with which you fundamentally disagree. What won't do is to screen out the criticism which you are unable to answer and respond only to weak, easily refuted objections or the posts of those with whom you already agree.

Here's the nub of the matter; if you take a position on a certain subject you ought to be able to justify that stance, (not least for yourself). This is doubly so if the entire raison d'etre of your site is to convince others of the accuracy of your position vis a vis competing theories and explanations. Its less than honest to push your view of the world and then hide relevant responses from your readers because they undermine the position you're advocating for.

Isn't it simple? If the critique can be challenged then argue against it and demonstrate how the critic's argument is mistaken; highlight the flaws in their logic and show that your position emerges unscathed. After all, if the critique is so poor this ought to be a doddle. Alternatively admit that your original piece doesn't survive the critic's slings and arrows but at the very least publish critical comments and allow others to make their own judgement. Isn't that what thoughtful, honest people do?

In refusing to publish criticism which might undermine your conclusions, you are both insulting and deceiving your readers and revealing your own lack of conviction. In short, over and above refusing to publish hate speech, defamatory comments or such like) whatever the issue you ought also to allow your readers to make up their own minds by publishing contrary comments.

Reagrdless of the stance of others, this blog is and aims to remain a dialogue and as such, all comments are welcome. Refusing to publish counter arguments is simply intellectually dishonesty of the worst kind, isn't it?