3 ms·
> The truth is there is no consensus so censoring half (or more) of the discussion is downright absurd. I agree with your point, though even if there is consen
by curiousgeorgio 5y ago
> The truth is there is no consensus so censoring half (or more) of the discussion is downright absurd.
I agree with your point, though even if there is consensus on a topic, we should still be able to have open discussion without censorship.
If you assume consensus is infallible, you'll be wrong sometimes. If dissenting voices are silenced, it's even worse: you'll be wrong, and not know that you're wrong.
In the cases where consensus is right, you're only adding fuel to the conspiracy theories when you censor opposing views.
In summary: freedom of speech - even wrong and unpopular speech - is essential to our continual pursuit of truth. To pretend that our world is somehow different today (as if misinformation or wrong ideas didn't exist before the internet) is just ignorance. How many times does history have to show us where the road of censorship leads?
- nemo44x 5y agoSad this is being downvoted. When you assume anyone or any consensus is infallible you have kings and endless appeals to the authority. The reason we have made unbelievable scientific progress is because we follow sone rules: 1) no one is an authority on the truth. 2) no one is infallible. 3) we can change our minds when new evidence occurs This doesn’t mean everyone’s opinion is equal or that truth doesn’t exist. Credibility is important. Method is important. Reproducibility is important. Consensus is important. It’s more difficult today because of the ease of mass communication. But in the end we are better off taking the long, difficult, and often infuriating road to finding the truth. The alternative is an inquisition and worse. The truth will always rise to the top, eventually, this way even if we are wrong along the way.