Nearly everyone, if they wrote out a list of truths, could have that list divided into "universal truths" (e.g. 1+1=2), "group (e.g. cultural) truths" (you flip up on a light switch to turn a light on), and "individual truths" (things only you believe, often wrongly).

It's not that you "can't say" a unorthodox statement (one that runs counter to one of these truths), but since all of these truths are held roughly at the same level, it will be the equivalent of saying "1 + 1 = 3," and you'll be dismissed and seen as crazy. The reaction will be visceral and abrupt. There will be little interest in hearing your side of the story; you're just talking nonsense.

I'm not a fan of Paul but he's right here. If someone says, "humans didn't go to the moon," it's extremely hard for most Americans to hear that. Their reaction isn't, "Why do you think that?" but "When did you lose your mind?" and all willingness to discuss it is off the table. That's not a normal reaction. The person poked an accepted truth, and in doing so, committed heresy.

That's not an accurate characterization, though. In the case of the particular statement you mentioned, what happened is that the person said something that clustered with things said by a lot of silly people. It is rational (in a Bayesian sense) to take that as evidence that the person making the statement is also silly. The main reason people won't engage in argument about it is because nobody cares that much whether you believe some weird unlikely thing about history. It doesn't affect anything, even in the unlikely event that you were right.

There are plenty of heterodox statements that don't have this effect to the same degree. For example, "dark matter doesn't actually exist, and instead serves as a kind of scientific 'god did it' get out of jail free card." This is a heterodox view, but one that doesn't get you cancelled or immediately called crazy. People will be skeptical of the view, and you'll need to bring some pretty heavy arguments, but that's basically tautological. If it were not so, the view would not be heterodox.

And, again, as Paul mentioned, we know throughout time that things we have considered absolutely true were false, how different is the current age?

Here's a more obvious example: When the heliocentric theory was proposed, every textbook, every paper, every discussion ever held on the subject, not only talked about the Ptolemaic universe but expounded and clarified how it all worked and how it all fit together. It was the well-known truth. It was also wrong.

What's funny is that your reaction is that, "All current truths are absolute truths so any deviation from that is false and wrong." You're literally confirming what Paul is saying.

Further, no one is saying you have to engage in active dialog with someone committing heresy. But if you dismiss it straight out of hand, you're really no different than a church official in the time of Galileo. The truth is on your side; silliness on the other.

I don't think I said anything even remotely close to that? Please don't put words in my mouth.

> And, again, as Paul mentioned, we know throughout time that things we have considered absolutely true were false, how different is the current age?

I'm afraid this is all a bit abstract for me. Perhaps reifying the discussion will help us come to a more agreeable conclusion. Can you share an example of a person who has been cancelled solely for making a fact claim?