In most domains people don’t make arguments because they either think they aren’t strong or because making the argument would lose them social status.
The cases where an argument carries with it real danger are relatively small, and in most of those cases it should be possible to know that you are in a problematic area. In those cases, you should make arguments first nonpublically with people who you consider to be good judges of whether those arguments should be made publically.
Adding to your first point: Or they don’t make arguments simply because—even if strong and in the absence of social costs—it does not pay.
(I think of the example of some policy debates where I know tons of academics who could easily provide tons of very strong, rather obvious arguments, that are essentially not made because none seems to care getting involved)
In most domains people don’t make arguments because they either think they aren’t strong or because making the argument would lose them social status.
The cases where an argument carries with it real danger are relatively small, and in most of those cases it should be possible to know that you are in a problematic area. In those cases, you should make arguments first nonpublically with people who you consider to be good judges of whether those arguments should be made publically.
Adding to your first point: Or they don’t make arguments simply because—even if strong and in the absence of social costs—it does not pay.
(I think of the example of some policy debates where I know tons of academics who could easily provide tons of very strong, rather obvious arguments, that are essentially not made because none seems to care getting involved)