8 ms·

> There is a real argument to be made here that this site is actively causing harm. Who or what is this site harming?

henearkr 4y ago
It's actively propagating conspiracy theories, denialism of anthropogenic global warming, fear of vaccines, distrust of health authorities... This is very harmful for everybody who read it without a critical mind (i.e. exactly the public it targets).
n4r9 4y ago
After a quick scan of the site, it does seem to have an anti-scientific bias (i.e. in opposition to scientific consensus) on COVID and climate change, which contributes to the harm caused by those things.
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  > in opposition to scientific consensus At what stage of the scientific method is inquiry no longer permitted? > COVID and climate change, Are the authorities 100% right about both of these topics? > which contributes to the harm caused by those things. Have you considered that trying to shut down free inquiry into these things makes many people even more distrustful of what you have to say?
  - n4r9 4y ago
    > At what stage of the scientific method is inquiry no longer permitted? Well, this is media reporting rather than scientific inquiry. There certainly are ethical limits to what can be published if it goes against fact or scientific consensus. For a more clearcut example, it's harmful if a publication reports that drinking urine cures cancer. I don't think you'd disagree that this would be hamrful (maybe you do?) but perhaps you differ on whether we have the same confidence about climate change and COVID. Which I suppose ties into your next question. > Are the authorities 100% right about COVID and climate change? Not sure what you mean by "authorities", but the current scientific consensus that the Earth is warming due to human activity is so strong, that it's practically comparable with statements like "the Earth goes round the sun". These are the people whose job it is to be objective and sceptical. Not everyone has the time and inclination to read the literature and understand the models ourselves, so we either trust in the science, or we think that the whole of science is caught up in some kind of mass hysteria or conspiracy. > Have you considered that trying to shut down free inquiry into these things makes many people even more distrustful of what you have to say? Sure, but I'm not sure I consider one company distancing itself from another to be the same as shutting down free inquiry. And anyway, the question I was considering was "is there an argument that the DailySceptic is harmful". I was simply proposing ways in which it may well be causing a social harm. Balancing that harm against the harm caused by restricting free speech is much trickier.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      > For a more clearcut example, it's harmful if a publication reports that drinking urine cures cancer. I wonder… Well, urine isn't on this list: http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/a-z/u http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/a-z/u But as this is about the principle and not just the specific, the Daily Mail is famous for saying things cause or cure cancer and the UK seems to let them get away with this without much in the way of noticeable impact on life expectancy ranking.
      - n4r9 4y ago
        Fair point. Although the Daily Mail does have to issue corrections and retractions if IPSO finds them in breach of Clause 1. And I don't know if there's an easy way to actually measure the impact on life expectancy.
    - logicalmonster 4y ago
      > Well, this is media reporting rather than scientific inquiry. The first step of the scientific method is observing and questioning reality. Whether this action is performed by somebody with "researcher" in their job title or not doesn't change that. > There certainly are ethical limits to what can be published if it goes against fact or scientific consensus. It was also scientific fact at one time that the Earth was the center of the universe, or that washing your hands before surgery was pointless. How do we know when it becomes ok to question fact or scientific consensus or not? > the current scientific consensus that the Earth is warming due to human activity is so strong For the sake of argument, if we take that statement as an iron-clad fact, we're still left with a wide range of outcomes within the reality of climate change. 1) How much is earth warming? 2) What level of harm would that cause? Might some areas of the globe benefit while others are harmed? 3) What if the proposed solutions to climate change cause more problems for humans than benefits? Is there not room to disagree with many proposed climate change solutions without being labeled as anti-scientific? > And anyway, the question I was considering was "is there an argument that the DailySceptic is harmful". Since you seem to be focusing on utilitarian outcomes, have you even considered the ways in that skepticism of what you're told to believe might perform a social good?
- ohCh6zos 4y ago
  Why do people have be pro-science? Historically the scientific method had been a powerful tool, but it isn’t proscriptive.
  - n4r9 4y ago
    What other tools do we have for investigating the universe, and therefore anticipating the harm of our actions?
  - henearkr 4y ago
    Science is knowledge on a subject, boosted by the use of logic. Once you see that, very hard not to be pro-it.
- origin_path 4y ago
  The site has a pro-science bias. Lots of its articles argue based on scientific principles that positions being advertised as a "scientific consensus" aren't reached using the scientific method. Look at this article from the front page for an example: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/20/status-bias-in-peer-review/ https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/20/status-bias-in-peer-revi... It reports on some claims (pre-print) that changing the name and title on a paper between a nobody and a Nobel Prize winner radically changes the likelihood of paper acceptance, i.e. scientific journals are relying mostly on reputation and not paper quality in their peer review process. If true that's not scientific and can lead to "consensus" that just reflects the opinions of a tiny handful of people through inertia. Here's an article by an anonymous academic criticizing a group of scientists who were engaging in political lobbying: https://dailysceptic.org/archive/when-did-scientists-turn-into-lobbyists/ https://dailysceptic.org/archive/when-did-scientists-turn-in... In general, consider how much COVID science was advertised as a consensus right up until the moment it inverted or was proven false. The lab leak was a disproven conspiracy theory right up until the Biden administration admitted it could be true and should be investigated. Vaccine mandates were required to stop the spread, then it was admitted vaccines didn't stop transmission. In the UK, Omicron had the same IFR as Delta and refusal to lock down over Christmas would create 4000 deaths a day, except that it didn't. The DS started as a blog for people who scratched the surface of these claims and went looking for the papers. When found they were invariably either missing or pseudo-scientific so there was a need for people to exchange notes and demonstrate their arguments for why this wasn't really science. It's important that such sites exist.
  - henearkr 4y ago
    If they attack positions that are widely recognized as scientific consensuses, then they clearly are NOT pro-science. I'd say further, the clearest sign that somebody or some organisation is not listening to science, is that they are actively questioning scientific consensuses.
    - origin_path 4y ago
      "If they attack positions that are widely recognized as scientific consensuses, then they clearly are NOT pro-science." This is the authoritarian pseudo-science that has been corrupting actual scientific progress for some time now. You are wrong for three reasons: 1. There's no such thing as a scientific consensus because science is a method, not a set of people, but a method can't have a consensus about something. 2. None of the positions they attack are actually a consensus anyway even if we replace the word "scientific" with "academics/scientists", and they like to prove it from time to time by pointing to scientists or entire groups of scientists stating that they disagree with those positions (see other comment). 3. Their writers provide data backed and scientific [counter-]arguments for their positions. There's also lots of articles there sounding the alarm about corruption of scientific institutions. Like this recent one [1] about bias in the peer review process. Here's another where they decry ideological bias in Nature [2]. They pretty regularly cover cases where scientific institutions are clearly acting in unscientific ways. [1] https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/20/status-bias-in-peer-review/ https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/20/status-bias-in-peer-revi... [2] https://dailysceptic.org/2022/07/02/the-ideological-capture-of-nature-and-why-it-matters/ https://dailysceptic.org/2022/07/02/the-ideological-capture-...

It's actively propagating conspiracy theories, denialism of anthropogenic global warming, fear of vaccines, distrust of health authorities... This is very harmful for everybody who read it without a critical mind (i.e. exactly the public it targets).

n4r9 4y ago

After a quick scan of the site, it does seem to have an anti-scientific bias (i.e. in opposition to scientific consensus) on COVID and climate change, which contributes to the harm caused by those things.

logicalmonster 4y ago
> in opposition to scientific consensus At what stage of the scientific method is inquiry no longer permitted? > COVID and climate change, Are the authorities 100% right about both of these topics? > which contributes to the harm caused by those things. Have you considered that trying to shut down free inquiry into these things makes many people even more distrustful of what you have to say?
- n4r9 4y ago
  > At what stage of the scientific method is inquiry no longer permitted? Well, this is media reporting rather than scientific inquiry. There certainly are ethical limits to what can be published if it goes against fact or scientific consensus. For a more clearcut example, it's harmful if a publication reports that drinking urine cures cancer. I don't think you'd disagree that this would be hamrful (maybe you do?) but perhaps you differ on whether we have the same confidence about climate change and COVID. Which I suppose ties into your next question. > Are the authorities 100% right about COVID and climate change? Not sure what you mean by "authorities", but the current scientific consensus that the Earth is warming due to human activity is so strong, that it's practically comparable with statements like "the Earth goes round the sun". These are the people whose job it is to be objective and sceptical. Not everyone has the time and inclination to read the literature and understand the models ourselves, so we either trust in the science, or we think that the whole of science is caught up in some kind of mass hysteria or conspiracy. > Have you considered that trying to shut down free inquiry into these things makes many people even more distrustful of what you have to say? Sure, but I'm not sure I consider one company distancing itself from another to be the same as shutting down free inquiry. And anyway, the question I was considering was "is there an argument that the DailySceptic is harmful". I was simply proposing ways in which it may well be causing a social harm. Balancing that harm against the harm caused by restricting free speech is much trickier.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    > For a more clearcut example, it's harmful if a publication reports that drinking urine cures cancer. I wonder… Well, urine isn't on this list: http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/a-z/u http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/a-z/u But as this is about the principle and not just the specific, the Daily Mail is famous for saying things cause or cure cancer and the UK seems to let them get away with this without much in the way of noticeable impact on life expectancy ranking.
    - n4r9 4y ago
      Fair point. Although the Daily Mail does have to issue corrections and retractions if IPSO finds them in breach of Clause 1. And I don't know if there's an easy way to actually measure the impact on life expectancy.
  - logicalmonster 4y ago
    > Well, this is media reporting rather than scientific inquiry. The first step of the scientific method is observing and questioning reality. Whether this action is performed by somebody with "researcher" in their job title or not doesn't change that. > There certainly are ethical limits to what can be published if it goes against fact or scientific consensus. It was also scientific fact at one time that the Earth was the center of the universe, or that washing your hands before surgery was pointless. How do we know when it becomes ok to question fact or scientific consensus or not? > the current scientific consensus that the Earth is warming due to human activity is so strong For the sake of argument, if we take that statement as an iron-clad fact, we're still left with a wide range of outcomes within the reality of climate change. 1) How much is earth warming? 2) What level of harm would that cause? Might some areas of the globe benefit while others are harmed? 3) What if the proposed solutions to climate change cause more problems for humans than benefits? Is there not room to disagree with many proposed climate change solutions without being labeled as anti-scientific? > And anyway, the question I was considering was "is there an argument that the DailySceptic is harmful". Since you seem to be focusing on utilitarian outcomes, have you even considered the ways in that skepticism of what you're told to believe might perform a social good?
ohCh6zos 4y ago
Why do people have be pro-science? Historically the scientific method had been a powerful tool, but it isn’t proscriptive.
- n4r9 4y ago
  What other tools do we have for investigating the universe, and therefore anticipating the harm of our actions?
- henearkr 4y ago
  Science is knowledge on a subject, boosted by the use of logic. Once you see that, very hard not to be pro-it.
origin_path 4y ago
The site has a pro-science bias. Lots of its articles argue based on scientific principles that positions being advertised as a "scientific consensus" aren't reached using the scientific method. Look at this article from the front page for an example: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/20/status-bias-in-peer-review/ https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/20/status-bias-in-peer-revi... It reports on some claims (pre-print) that changing the name and title on a paper between a nobody and a Nobel Prize winner radically changes the likelihood of paper acceptance, i.e. scientific journals are relying mostly on reputation and not paper quality in their peer review process. If true that's not scientific and can lead to "consensus" that just reflects the opinions of a tiny handful of people through inertia. Here's an article by an anonymous academic criticizing a group of scientists who were engaging in political lobbying: https://dailysceptic.org/archive/when-did-scientists-turn-into-lobbyists/ https://dailysceptic.org/archive/when-did-scientists-turn-in... In general, consider how much COVID science was advertised as a consensus right up until the moment it inverted or was proven false. The lab leak was a disproven conspiracy theory right up until the Biden administration admitted it could be true and should be investigated. Vaccine mandates were required to stop the spread, then it was admitted vaccines didn't stop transmission. In the UK, Omicron had the same IFR as Delta and refusal to lock down over Christmas would create 4000 deaths a day, except that it didn't. The DS started as a blog for people who scratched the surface of these claims and went looking for the papers. When found they were invariably either missing or pseudo-scientific so there was a need for people to exchange notes and demonstrate their arguments for why this wasn't really science. It's important that such sites exist.
- henearkr 4y ago
  If they attack positions that are widely recognized as scientific consensuses, then they clearly are NOT pro-science. I'd say further, the clearest sign that somebody or some organisation is not listening to science, is that they are actively questioning scientific consensuses.
  - origin_path 4y ago
    "If they attack positions that are widely recognized as scientific consensuses, then they clearly are NOT pro-science." This is the authoritarian pseudo-science that has been corrupting actual scientific progress for some time now. You are wrong for three reasons: 1. There's no such thing as a scientific consensus because science is a method, not a set of people, but a method can't have a consensus about something. 2. None of the positions they attack are actually a consensus anyway even if we replace the word "scientific" with "academics/scientists", and they like to prove it from time to time by pointing to scientists or entire groups of scientists stating that they disagree with those positions (see other comment). 3. Their writers provide data backed and scientific [counter-]arguments for their positions. There's also lots of articles there sounding the alarm about corruption of scientific institutions. Like this recent one [1] about bias in the peer review process. Here's another where they decry ideological bias in Nature [2]. They pretty regularly cover cases where scientific institutions are clearly acting in unscientific ways. [1] https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/20/status-bias-in-peer-review/ https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/20/status-bias-in-peer-revi... [2] https://dailysceptic.org/2022/07/02/the-ideological-capture-of-nature-and-why-it-matters/ https://dailysceptic.org/2022/07/02/the-ideological-capture-...