D'rok
Free Barbarian on The Land
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 6,399
Hello All,
A friend recently sent me this link on the subject of denial, scepticism, free speech and scientific orthodoxy which seems directly relevant to the mindset of many twoofers. It provoked a wordy response from me which I have included below the link. Perhaps the JREF ninjas would like to weigh in.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/printable/2792/
This may not be the appropriate sub-forum for this post...if so, my apologies
Lotsa text starts here:
Wow. Very ineffective polemical argument based entirely on equivocation. Where to begin?
There is absolutely no basis for equivocating scientific consensus with Catholic doctrine. There is a simple way to change scientific consensus...do some science. Peer reviewed, repeatable and falsifiable experimental results will win the day every time, even if there is initial resistance. The scientist that shows the way will be a hero, not a heretic. Scientific consensus may be orthodoxy, but it is not revealed and it welcomes challenge, as long as that challenge is legitimate - i.e. scientific not political/theological/metaphysical.
Should denial be criminalized? No. Should deniers who cannot or will not produce evidence be ostracized, ridiculed and marginalized? Yes. Denial itself is not a virtue. Should policy be based on scientific orthodoxy? Yes. Should the policy change if new evidence changes the orthodoxy? Yes. Does our current system of science do a good job of allowing challenges to its orthodoxy? Mostly yes.
Climate Change deniers are not Galileo. Holocaust deniers are not Copernicus. This is a tired, tired argument of conspiracy theorists everywhere who consider consensus to be repression and dissent to be mandated in every case where consensus exists. I see this kind of mindset constantly in the 9-11 denier movement where facts are willfully ignored in favour of fantasy and this behaviour is justified by this very argument.
Scientific consensus is not received wisdom and scientific scepticisim is not heresy. Politically/Theologically/Culturally motivated scepticisim of scientific consensus is simply stupidity unless legitimate science backs it up.
This deifying of denial in the guise of free speech is an especially odious form of moral relativism. It is perfectly possible to make moral judgments on opinions. Not all opinions are equal simply because they are freely held by individuals. Denial in the cases that he cites (holocaust, climate change) are not instances of noble iconoclasts challenging an oppressive regime of anti-intellectualism/anti-free speech. They are just plain wrong, and the facts support that conclusion. There are moral consequences for acting on wrong opinions and we rightfully condemn such action.
Now, if the question is do we need State protection from denial....well of course not. What we need is public officials who do not engage in it. Sensibilities are not things that need legal protection from bad speech resulting from bad ideas. That appears to be his point, but he makes it extra-ordinarily poorly. I'm all for de-PC'ing the world, but this does not mean that willful ignorance is free-thinking and that it is immune from condemnation. I agree that Free Speech is sacrosanct and should be pretty close to absolute, but moral judgments can be made about the contents of that speech and any morally wrong actions resulting from freely spoken denial can be declared unlawful.
And I say this as a profoundly sceptical person on a lot of subjects, but scepticism is simply a starting point. It is the path to knowledge, it is not knowledge. Question everything, believe nothing is not a virtuous stance. Question everything, believe - at least provisionally - the best answers based on the best evidence, is.
A friend recently sent me this link on the subject of denial, scepticism, free speech and scientific orthodoxy which seems directly relevant to the mindset of many twoofers. It provoked a wordy response from me which I have included below the link. Perhaps the JREF ninjas would like to weigh in.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/printable/2792/
This may not be the appropriate sub-forum for this post...if so, my apologies
Lotsa text starts here:
Wow. Very ineffective polemical argument based entirely on equivocation. Where to begin?
There is absolutely no basis for equivocating scientific consensus with Catholic doctrine. There is a simple way to change scientific consensus...do some science. Peer reviewed, repeatable and falsifiable experimental results will win the day every time, even if there is initial resistance. The scientist that shows the way will be a hero, not a heretic. Scientific consensus may be orthodoxy, but it is not revealed and it welcomes challenge, as long as that challenge is legitimate - i.e. scientific not political/theological/metaphysical.
Should denial be criminalized? No. Should deniers who cannot or will not produce evidence be ostracized, ridiculed and marginalized? Yes. Denial itself is not a virtue. Should policy be based on scientific orthodoxy? Yes. Should the policy change if new evidence changes the orthodoxy? Yes. Does our current system of science do a good job of allowing challenges to its orthodoxy? Mostly yes.
Climate Change deniers are not Galileo. Holocaust deniers are not Copernicus. This is a tired, tired argument of conspiracy theorists everywhere who consider consensus to be repression and dissent to be mandated in every case where consensus exists. I see this kind of mindset constantly in the 9-11 denier movement where facts are willfully ignored in favour of fantasy and this behaviour is justified by this very argument.
Scientific consensus is not received wisdom and scientific scepticisim is not heresy. Politically/Theologically/Culturally motivated scepticisim of scientific consensus is simply stupidity unless legitimate science backs it up.
This deifying of denial in the guise of free speech is an especially odious form of moral relativism. It is perfectly possible to make moral judgments on opinions. Not all opinions are equal simply because they are freely held by individuals. Denial in the cases that he cites (holocaust, climate change) are not instances of noble iconoclasts challenging an oppressive regime of anti-intellectualism/anti-free speech. They are just plain wrong, and the facts support that conclusion. There are moral consequences for acting on wrong opinions and we rightfully condemn such action.
Now, if the question is do we need State protection from denial....well of course not. What we need is public officials who do not engage in it. Sensibilities are not things that need legal protection from bad speech resulting from bad ideas. That appears to be his point, but he makes it extra-ordinarily poorly. I'm all for de-PC'ing the world, but this does not mean that willful ignorance is free-thinking and that it is immune from condemnation. I agree that Free Speech is sacrosanct and should be pretty close to absolute, but moral judgments can be made about the contents of that speech and any morally wrong actions resulting from freely spoken denial can be declared unlawful.
And I say this as a profoundly sceptical person on a lot of subjects, but scepticism is simply a starting point. It is the path to knowledge, it is not knowledge. Question everything, believe nothing is not a virtuous stance. Question everything, believe - at least provisionally - the best answers based on the best evidence, is.
Last edited: