Is Science Denial worse than murder?

[Tank]

I wrote the following in this post viewtopic.php?p=72233#p72233

This is why the ideas you support are dangerous, ultimately the most dangerous, more dangerous than any war, more dangerous than any weapon, more dangerous than any disease. You deny reality. Wars are caused by the our evolutionary past, they are simply tribal battles writ large. If we can not admit our evolved and flawed existance we can't do anything about the reality of the situation we find ourselves in. Denying science is the worst sin of all, not the application, but the process of the scientific method. That process has proved to be the only way of really systematically improving our lot in life.

In his excellent rebuttal of Filanthropod, KebertX made the following point.

Denying science is the worst sin of all - Gee, I thought murder was pretty high up on the list, but obviously belief in your doctrine seems more important to you. By the way, you really are starting to sound like a preacher. What other sins should I abstain from, reverend?

While I aggree with you on this specific point (Murder is worse than denying science)This is a Fallacy of Weak Induction: Appeal to Unqualified Authority. In this case you are using sarcasm to discredit your opponent to make it appear that HE is the one who has employed this fallacy.  In this respect, you have also created a Straw Man!

KebertX appears to agree that 'Murder is worse that denying science'. As KerertX exhibits intelligence and logic in his posts this made me re-evaluate my thoughts and I still consider the 'denial of science' as more 'sinful' than murder. However I stand to have my mind changed by reasoned criticism so I thought I would start this thread to consider the following.

What is 'science denial'? In my opinion this is a mind set / world view that holds that the scientific method, and the results thereof, is not a reasonable methodology when it comes to discovering the reality of operation of the material world. Murder is a premeditated or hot-blooded act that results in the deliberate death of another individual or individuals. I have defined these just to make my position clear for the terms I have used.

My contention that science denial is worse than murder is pretty much founded on the amount of damage each can do to society and the individuals that make up that society. By way of illustration I will cite one starting point. The ex-president of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki was a leading light in AIDS denialism, in brief he denied that the HIV virus caused AIDS. How much damage, by way of death and personal suffering, did the views held by Thabo Mbeki cause? My contention that it could well cause a lot more damage than all the murders in South Africa. I don't want to debate the specifics of this one example but the more encompassing idea that science denial would kill far more people than murder and is therefore more dangerous.

I think that's a good enough point to start the debate. Input much appreciated.

[coltcat]

it remind me a movie , The Village.
does living in a autism peaceful non-violence promoting innocence society thats unwelling of knowledge-seeking can be consider a good thing?

maybe the situation above is just ignorance , not really science denial.

science denial is just a phase of what it will become and murder is just a byproduct of that , witch is filling that hole with nonsense.

[The Black Jester]

This is a sticky question for me.  I can see where you might argue that "science-denial" can ultimately become connected with deaths, the question becomes whether the connection is contingent or necessary.  Must one, absolutely, in all possible worlds, lead to the other.

In some ways, I'm not sure if the original question is really a clear question.  If the connection is a necessary one, and if "science-denial" is bad because it leads to deaths, which would be the unwarranted killing of other human beings, how would that not also be murder?  So, essentially, you're asking "is a process that results in murder worse than murder itself."  Not sure how to answer that, other than to say that they are, in some respects, fundamentally equivalent in the way you define them.

But I take it that you mean, "which is worse, deaths resulting murder inspired by the denial of science, or deaths resulting from murder inspired by other causes."

Still a sticky question.  People murder for lots of reasons, especially political reasons, and I'm not certain who's winning in the death count - religion or political ideology.

[Tank]

I think I need to clarify something. I don't see 'science denial' as leading to the active killing of individuals in the same way that would be in the case of shooting them. I see the deaths arising in a passive manner, but the deaths still occur. So motivation and intent are not really the issue. Denying the efficacy of the scientific method to define the world we inhabit, on the materialistic level, means one must substitute some inferior world view, which is less accurate. It is impossible to systematically solve a problem with inaccurate or insufficient information. If you can't define a problem properly you can't solve it. If there is superstition involved in the equation you can never really solve a problem, you might get lucky but you would be fighting an uphill battle to do it.

Does that help?

[Squid]

I think I see what Tank is getting at (feel free to correct me if I'm off the mark Tank).  A possible example may be faith healing with Christian Science adherents.  We've all seen the instances in the news where parents and family members elected to pray over a sick child at home rather than take them to a see a medical professional yet the child dies.  Many instances have occurred where the illness was easily treatable if the family had simply taken the child to a hospital.  In the eyes of many, believer and non-believer alike, this behavior is tantamount to murder by refusing to seek medical help for the ill child. The family may have had good intentions yet their eschewing modern medical science in favor of a 'supernatural' intervention was a clear decision made by sane (in the legal sense) individuals which ultimately led to a very avoidable death.  While I understand that faith healing is more of a fringe religious practice I used it to provide a clear illustration.

[Tank]

Squid is spot on using a singular example. Another would be the issue Jehovah Witnesses have with blood transfusions. Another would be the MMR vaccination problem, although that is a little clouded by the fact that the original work correlating MMR to autism was flawed. However the correct use of the scientific method eventually corrected that issue.

[The Black Jester]

It's true, I wasn't precisely clear on which aspects of religious behavior Tank was focusing.  However...

In the eyes of many, believer and non-believer alike, this behavior is tantamount to murder by refusing to seek medical help for the ill child.

If such behavior is tantamount to murder, the original question could still arguably be reduced to: "is murder worse than murder?"  To me murder for any reason is unconscionable - whether it is due to ignorance and stubbornness or to revenge or to any other reason.  

But I suspect you would then argue that we are really determining between the causes of Murder.  Ignorance is a bad one.

[Tank]

We may be getting hung up on words here. There is the difference of the sin of omission and the sin of commission, the result, in this case death would be the same. I would consider murder to be a sin of commission while that of science denial the sin of omission as there is no intent to kill in the later case (possibly the exact opposite). However I contend that in this discussion that the number of deaths caused by collective science denial would, over time, be greater than that of collective murder. Thus science denial would be worse than murder.

[Kylyssa]

But the question is, have there been more deaths caused by murder by individuals (not including institutionalized murder such as warfare) or by science denial?

I'm tentatively going to side on science denial.  

During the Dark Ages, the Church tried to eradicate all non-Church knowledge.  They even eradicated cleanliness procedures such as using outhouses and burying wastes or dumping human waste into middens instead of the street.  The ignorance brought about by this near total knowledge eradication resulted in the death of a third of the population of Europe through the Black Death alone and uncounted thousands from death to other filth related illnesses.  Complicating the issue was the purposeful burning of cats, the major control on the European rat population.  There was also an unprecedented infant and maternal mortality rate both from filth related birth complications and the systematic destruction of the institution of midwifery.  

Deaths from the purposeful spread of ignorance, the purposeful spread of misinformation, and the purposeful destruction of knowledge continued well beyond the Black Death.  If we consider the deaths of those who could have been saved by a clean environment and those who could have been saved if medicine had been allowed to continue uninterrupted and unhindered, the death toll likely rises into the millions.  If doctors had only been allowed to do autopsies a few hundred years earlier, again, medical science would have progressed much faster.

But on to the present day - the purposeful denial of scientific fact is killing millions due to the misinformation spread about the AIDS and the effectiveness of condoms and the refusal to allow those that need them to use them.  Science denial will result in more women dead of cervical cancer due to religious objections to HPV vaccinations.  I'm sure there are more.

One influential person's science denial can be worse, in my opinion, than direct murder.  If that person is, say, the Pope, there's no doubt in my mind that science denial is far worse than murdering one person.  Millions may die from his actions.  Even on a smaller level, individual religious leaders commit murder through science denial in the form of teaching people to deny children medical treatment in favor of prayer.

But if we are talking about one completely non-influential individual's denial of science, then no, I don't think that is worse than murder.  But the problem is that most people have some degree of influence and the misinformation spreads like wildfire.  Look at the "vaccines cause autism" people.  Their science denial started small, now thousands (maybe tens of thousands, maybe more) of children are missing the protection of vaccines.  In my opinion, if a purposely un-vaccinated child dies from an illness preventable by vaccination or if that child gives another child too young to be vaccinated yet a fatal illness the un-vaccinated child's parents have committed murder.  That bit of science denial started small and recently yet it has grown at a frightening rate.

[Asmodean]

Denial of science that leads to criminal negligence, death, injury or deprivation of the ability to exercise one's rights, I do see as a criminal act.

If, on the other hand, it just leads to bigotry, ignorance and obnoxiousness, then I just think it's stupid.

The consequences define the value of the action.

[Squid]

It's true, I wasn't precisely clear on which aspects of religious behavior Tank was focusing.  However...

In the eyes of many, believer and non-believer alike, this behavior is tantamount to murder by refusing to seek medical help for the ill child.

If such behavior is tantamount to murder, the original question could still arguably be reduced to: "is murder worse than murder?"  To me murder for any reason is unconscionable - whether it is due to ignorance and stubbornness or to revenge or to any other reason.  

But I suspect you would then argue that we are really determining between the causes of Murder.  Ignorance is a bad one.

The point I was getting at is that to many people homicide through negligence is no less worse than beating the child to death - one just being passive while the other is active - of course in such things as murder it gets complicated because you can bring in things such as intent.  In one instance the parents didn't necessarily intend for their child to be harmed and the other, inflicting pain/harm was the intent.  However, in both cases there may not have been an intention to cause death...and so on and so forth.  I personally view it as more complicated as I pointed out and was simply echoing the views expressed by many others in my own personal experiences with such discussions as this in philosophy classes, on the internet and drunken debates (those are the most entertaining I think).

[The Black Jester]

We may be getting hung up on words here.

Very possible, and so I offer my apologies.  I'm not trying to be intentionally obtuse, just trying to parse the language a little to make sure everyone's on the same page.  Turned out, perhaps everyone was but me.  I'll take the blame for that.

There is the difference of the sin of omission and the sin of commission, the result, in this case death would be the same. I would consider murder to be a sin of commission while that of science denial the sin of omission as there is no intent to kill in the later case (possibly the exact opposite). However I contend that in this discussion that the number of deaths caused by collective science denial would, over time, be greater than that of collective murder. Thus science denial would be worse than murder.

For me, this is much clearer, thank you.  Kylyssa makes a very strong argument, and I think I would tend to agree - the influence of a few individuals can often spread like a virus.  And I agree with Asmodean that the consequences of an act bear greatly upon its valure, positive or negative.  What almost makes science denial worse for me is the comic-tragedy that those perpetrating it think they are doing "good" for the world and each other.  

Squid - understood.

[Tank]

We may be getting hung up on words here.

Very possible, and so I offer my apologies.  I'm not trying to be intentionally obtuse, just trying to parse the language a little to make sure everyone's on the same page.  Turned out, perhaps everyone was but me.  I'll take the blame for that.

No need to apologise because I can't explain myself properly as the creator of a message bears responsibility for its clarity.

There is the difference of the sin of omission and the sin of commission, the result, in this case death would be the same. I would consider murder to be a sin of commission while that of science denial the sin of omission as there is no intent to kill in the later case (possibly the exact opposite). However I contend that in this discussion that the number of deaths caused by collective science denial would, over time, be greater than that of collective murder. Thus science denial would be worse than murder.

For me, this is much clearer, thank you.  Kylyssa makes a very strong argument, and I think I would tend to agree - the influence of a few individuals can often spread like a virus.  And I agree with Asmodean that the consequences of an act bear greatly upon its valure, positive or negative.  What almost makes science denial worse for me is the comic-tragedy that those perpetrating it think they are doing "good" for the world and each other.  

One of the current problems is the apparent equality of information on the internet, where the un-educated and politically motivated rubbish the hard work of intelligent, hard working, conscientious professionals; be they teachers, doctors or scientists.

[The Black Jester]

One of the current problems is the apparent equality of information on the internet, where the un-educated and politically motivated rubbish the hard work of intelligent, hard working, conscientious professionals; be they teachers, doctors or scientists.

I would absolutely agree.  The ubiquity of information, with no guarantee of its quality, can overwhelm the unwary.  This also goes to something Will posted in response to a post elsewhere - effectively saying that one must realize that knowledge is not democratic.  There is a fact of the matter, whatever that matter is, and the scientific method has been the most reliable way of getting at the fact of matters.

[KebertX]

There are extremes on both sides.

Murder ranges from Killing someone like Hitler, (a very moral action) TO The systematic extermination of millions of people (a very immoral action).
Science denial ranges from Living a pacifist life in the belief that Brahma breathed the universe into existence and created life from the Ganges River (A Moral contribution to society) TO things like AIDS Denial, Holocaust Denial, or depriving a generation of people with vaccinations (Immoral Detriments to society).

But when you say the word "Sin" you are talking about an immoral action committed by an individual.  I consider something to be immoral only if is harming, or otherwise causing suffering to other beings.  I would be lying if I said science denial wasn't hurting anybody, but the sort of damage it does is different. Murder is directly hurting people.  Science Denial hurts the society, and indirectly hurts people.  So let's compare the individual actions.

When one person commits a murder, they are taking the life of one or more presumably innocent people.  They are taking the audacity upon themselves to think that they have the right to decide when another person should live or die.
When one person denies science, they are reducing the advancement of the human race by 1.5 billionth of a percent.  They are taking the audacity upon themselves to assume that their own guess is better to rely on than empirical evidence.

So who does the more harm, and who's audacity is less tolerable. To both, I would say the murderer.  You are killing a person, which is worse than anything which happens inside your mind.  Science Denial leads to bad things, but it's not a sin.  Telling a person that it's wrong for them to deny science is a form of Thought Policing.  We don't have to like it, but they have that right.

I'm against Science Deniers in the same way I'm against Juggalos, The Westboro Baptist Church, NAMbLA, and Neo Nazis.  I can hate it all I want (I deeply resent all those groups), but until they take the extra step and actually use their thoughts/views/opinions to hurt someone (Which they usually do) It's not my place to say their thoughts are wrong.  Thought Policing is a worse Sin than Science Denial.

That being said: People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.  If your "opinion" is a belief that contradicts fact, then it is a delusion.  When people deny science, they are creating a delusion for themselves.  This delusion is dangerous when it causes them to take actions like refuse to vaccinate their child, or allow genetic engineering of food to feed the hungry, or encourage people to treat AIDS with crap cures.


Lies that promote science Denial.

[youtube:1mvpaun1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OMLSs8t1ng[/youtube:1mvpaun1]
This guy sums up my point well.