Abstract

Mill’s famous meta-inductive argument for freedom of speech claims that the adoption of norms of freedom and tolerance exposes our convictions to dissent and falsification and thus makes progress towards truth possible. It also claims that this is an argument accessible to any person capable of inductive rationality, while not appealing to any substantive value. The paper will question both these claims and show that the argument is much weaker than generally thought. The argument turns on exposing an incompatibility between an implicit assumption of Mill’s argument that truth is a goal of inquiry that is worth pursuing and his explicit fallibilist claim that we can never be sure that we have achieved the truth in our inquiry.