“A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.”

William james

Our meta-narratives are falling apart; their centres no longer hold. The isms and schisms of yesterday fail to explain the realities of a shrinking and connected but atomised world. Most of us have retreated to the comfort and safety of our own echo chambers, seeking solace in the sound of voices like our own.  

But rather than wallow in the mud of our own confirmation biases, hail some dogma of intellectual tribalism and embrace a stance of absolutism, we’ve opted to become active participants in the experiment.

This project began as a private exploration of two questions: Is it possible to cogently argue a point of view you don’t personally hold? And, could the process of attempting to do so actually change one’s mind?  

Having answered both in the affirmative, we introduced a third: Could presenting two sides of a given debate open the minds of others? And so was borne The Liffey Accord.

This blog is an attempt to bash down the doors of your echo chamber; to prick the meniscus of your filter bubble to encourage greater understanding and generosity for those who might not share your point of view. If The Liffey Accord has an avatar it is the high priest of Objective Falsification, Karl Popper, who asserted the best way to prove something, is to attempt to disprove it.

Each subject proffers two blogs and two different, broadly opposing points of view. While we may argue authoritatively, we do not present ourselves as the final authorities. Therefore, you are encouraged to engage, to comment, to offer contra-points and counter arguments. 

Liberté. Égalité. Contrairé.

With love from The Liffey Accord.