3 ms·

> in opposition to scientific consensus At what stage of the scientific method is inquiry no longer permitted? > COVID and climate change, Are the authoritie

> 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?
  - henearkr 4y ago
    The one with "researcher" title is one of those who spent most of their life learning about the subject, comparing and simulating different theories, and weighing the odds using statistical models, which by the way is also why they are aware of the uncertainty of their conclusions. So, when those people gather and are in a consensus about a specific question, it means a lot. Whereas when a lay person without such title or background questions the consensus, it really means little. A great way to be helpful to Humanity, for the Daily Sceptic, would have been to take important things brought by researchers on, say, AGW, and make an effort to transform it in a format more easily understandable to the public. In place of that, they pick articles bearing ultra-minority opinions against the consensuses, and they propulse them to the rank of "just another opinion in a controversial problem", although the problem is not at all controversial, it's just that there always exist people who say anything.
  - 4y ago

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?
- henearkr 4y ago
  The one with "researcher" title is one of those who spent most of their life learning about the subject, comparing and simulating different theories, and weighing the odds using statistical models, which by the way is also why they are aware of the uncertainty of their conclusions. So, when those people gather and are in a consensus about a specific question, it means a lot. Whereas when a lay person without such title or background questions the consensus, it really means little. A great way to be helpful to Humanity, for the Daily Sceptic, would have been to take important things brought by researchers on, say, AGW, and make an effort to transform it in a format more easily understandable to the public. In place of that, they pick articles bearing ultra-minority opinions against the consensuses, and they propulse them to the rank of "just another opinion in a controversial problem", although the problem is not at all controversial, it's just that there always exist people who say anything.
- 4y ago