4 ms·

Clickbait headline alert! As the article also states, this dumbf..k offered a bounty of 100k to anyone who could prove that the measles virus actually exists. H

Clickbait headline alert! As the article also states, this dumbf..k offered a bounty of 100k to anyone who could prove that the measles virus actually exists. He refused to pay, a doctor brought it to court, and he won. Still, negating the existence of measles or viruses in general doesn't cost a cent in Germany.

CmonDev 12y ago
I guess the dream of a scientocratic society proactively punishing ignorance won't materialise. Denying evolution? 10 lashes!
- pif 12y ago
  Just a matter of vocabulary: "dismissal of scientific evidence" != "ignorance".
- allendoerfer 12y ago
  Evolution is indeed just a theory - the one every scientist sees as the most likely - but still a theory. Edit (reply-limit): Thanks readerrr and cremno, valid points, will consider it in the future. What I meant was, there have been theories before the current theory of evolution. For example Lamarck's one, which is long considered false but lately some aspects of it are reintroduced. If we would punish everyone for denying evolution we would be unable to advance it. And of course this has nothing to do with teaching children biology. Of course children need to be taught evolution there.
  - readerrr 12y ago
    You are using an incorrect definition of the word. Theory used in science[0] means: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena and not: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact We have a separate word for the latter: a hypothesis. [0]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
  - cremno 12y ago
    http://www.notjustatheory.com/ http://www.notjustatheory.com/
  - Luc 12y ago
    I feel kind of bad mentioning it since everyone's bound to pile on, but evolution is a readily observed fact (e.g. breeding of dogs), while it's natural selection that's the theory...
  - imescent 12y ago
    Because science isn't about generating indisputable facts. If that's what you're doing, what you're doing isn't science. The epitome of good science is a predictive and well-supported theory like evolution. Adding the word "just" implies a misunderstanding of how the scientific method works, because it doesn't get any better than a good theory.
NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
The English word you're looking for is probably "denying". > Still, negating the existence of measles or viruses in general doesn't cost a cent in Germany. It shouldn't. Truth can't be found by forcing others to believe in your version of it. The acceptance of any given fact will naturally follow a normal distribution, and those on one side or the other of that curve aren't defective. They're actually necessary for intelligent and critical discourse. Even this fool provided an opportunity for the public to learn how wrong he was.
- DaFranker 12y ago
  >It shouldn't. Truth can't be found by forcing others to believe in your version of it. The acceptance of any given fact will naturally follow a normal distribution, and those on one side or the other of that curve aren't defective. They're actually necessary for intelligent and critical discourse. I'm rather partial to imposing a tax on self-delusion and refusing to update beliefs in face of overwhelming evidence. Also, the normal distribution part is plainly unjustified. The scientific consensus on various climate change topics is widely accepted to a high confidence by many, and widely denied with even higher confidence by many others. Bayesian belief networks are better models for individuals, and if we were to put belief in a given generic climate-change-related claim on a curve with 1:1 confidence in the middle and "certain true/false" at the extremes, you'd have a valley, not a normal. An asymmetrical valley, to boot.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
    > Also, the normal distribution part is plainly unjustified. The scientific consensus That's a dumb thing to say. "Scientific consensus"? Really? I suppose the first time a person chants "scientific consensus" everyone down to the last person is supposed to instantaneously change their minds and accept it, right? The truth of the matter is that some people are slower to accept such truths than others. This doesn't mean that they're unwilling to accept them forever, but maybe it takes them a few weeks/months/years to arrive at the same conclusion as the rest. There's no reason to punish them or "tax" them for this. Even if you could somehow determine that they never will accept it (rather than just being slow), those people are still necessary to keep the consensus honest. Without them, there won't be any criticism left, and then it just becomes a game for jackasses to try to get people to chant "scientific consensus" enough that everyone else must accept it instantly or be punished for not doing so. What you're talking about isn't "consensus" at all, it's groupthink. And it's pretty fucking sad that you've confused one for the other.
Snesker 12y ago
Challenging the official story about the alleged holocaust costs you your freedom, however.

CmonDev 12y ago

I guess the dream of a scientocratic society proactively punishing ignorance won't materialise. Denying evolution? 10 lashes!

pif 12y ago
Just a matter of vocabulary: "dismissal of scientific evidence" != "ignorance".
allendoerfer 12y ago
Evolution is indeed just a theory - the one every scientist sees as the most likely - but still a theory. Edit (reply-limit): Thanks readerrr and cremno, valid points, will consider it in the future. What I meant was, there have been theories before the current theory of evolution. For example Lamarck's one, which is long considered false but lately some aspects of it are reintroduced. If we would punish everyone for denying evolution we would be unable to advance it. And of course this has nothing to do with teaching children biology. Of course children need to be taught evolution there.
- readerrr 12y ago
  You are using an incorrect definition of the word. Theory used in science[0] means: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena and not: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact We have a separate word for the latter: a hypothesis. [0]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
- cremno 12y ago
  http://www.notjustatheory.com/ http://www.notjustatheory.com/
- Luc 12y ago
  I feel kind of bad mentioning it since everyone's bound to pile on, but evolution is a readily observed fact (e.g. breeding of dogs), while it's natural selection that's the theory...
- imescent 12y ago
  Because science isn't about generating indisputable facts. If that's what you're doing, what you're doing isn't science. The epitome of good science is a predictive and well-supported theory like evolution. Adding the word "just" implies a misunderstanding of how the scientific method works, because it doesn't get any better than a good theory.

NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago

The English word you're looking for is probably "denying". > Still, negating the existence of measles or viruses in general doesn't cost a cent in Germany. It shouldn't. Truth can't be found by forcing others to believe in your version of it. The acceptance of any given fact will naturally follow a normal distribution, and those on one side or the other of that curve aren't defective. They're actually necessary for intelligent and critical discourse. Even this fool provided an opportunity for the public to learn how wrong he was.

DaFranker 12y ago
>It shouldn't. Truth can't be found by forcing others to believe in your version of it. The acceptance of any given fact will naturally follow a normal distribution, and those on one side or the other of that curve aren't defective. They're actually necessary for intelligent and critical discourse. I'm rather partial to imposing a tax on self-delusion and refusing to update beliefs in face of overwhelming evidence. Also, the normal distribution part is plainly unjustified. The scientific consensus on various climate change topics is widely accepted to a high confidence by many, and widely denied with even higher confidence by many others. Bayesian belief networks are better models for individuals, and if we were to put belief in a given generic climate-change-related claim on a curve with 1:1 confidence in the middle and "certain true/false" at the extremes, you'd have a valley, not a normal. An asymmetrical valley, to boot.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
  > Also, the normal distribution part is plainly unjustified. The scientific consensus That's a dumb thing to say. "Scientific consensus"? Really? I suppose the first time a person chants "scientific consensus" everyone down to the last person is supposed to instantaneously change their minds and accept it, right? The truth of the matter is that some people are slower to accept such truths than others. This doesn't mean that they're unwilling to accept them forever, but maybe it takes them a few weeks/months/years to arrive at the same conclusion as the rest. There's no reason to punish them or "tax" them for this. Even if you could somehow determine that they never will accept it (rather than just being slow), those people are still necessary to keep the consensus honest. Without them, there won't be any criticism left, and then it just becomes a game for jackasses to try to get people to chant "scientific consensus" enough that everyone else must accept it instantly or be punished for not doing so. What you're talking about isn't "consensus" at all, it's groupthink. And it's pretty fucking sad that you've confused one for the other.

Snesker 12y ago

Challenging the official story about the alleged holocaust costs you your freedom, however.