Happy Atheist Forum

I wrote the following in this post viewtopic.php?p=72233#p72233 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=72233#p72233)

QuoteThis 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.

Quote from: "KebertX"

Quote from: "Filanthropod"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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thabo_Mbeki) was a leading light in AIDS denialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

Quote from: "Squid"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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"It's true, I wasn't precisely clear on which aspects of religious behavior Tank was focusing.  However...

Quote from: "Squid"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).

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Tank"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.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"

Quote from: "Tank"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.

Quote from: "Tank"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.

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.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffreeforum.files.wordpress.com%2F2007%2F06%2Fteach_both_theories.png&hash=2d2687ceb547cc6dedfb7a74f329ffebf5277a44)
Lies that promote science Denial.

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

Quote from: "KebertX"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.

I'm deeply conflicted about these issues, for precisely the reason you present.  I despise the idea of censorship in any form, but at the same time, I despise obfuscation and prevarication, particularly when it comes to the nature of the world.  I don't know where to draw the line, except at behavior.  Thoughts we should not police - behaviors we can.

While the vacous may not be, vacuousness in itself can be vicious. Murder may be the will to kill but willful ignorance can lead to the same result. So I don't know that one is necessarily "worse" other than that you may have a better chance at getting away with lethal stupidity such as science denial. Perhaps it's more like manslaughter.

How about adding these thoughts to the mix?

On a one-to-one basis a murderer is worse than a science denier, I wouldn't dispute that and I don't feel the majority of people would dispute it either. Being a murderer is socially unacceptable and we see this because, without exception AFAIK, all societies have rules prohibiting murder. No society AFAIK has rules prohibiting science denial. So at this level of the individual one would have to concede, on the basis of prevalent social sanctions, that a murderer is considered worse than a science denier.  

However, from the video a figure off 400,000 deaths was sited as a result of the science denial of Thabo Mbeki ex-president of South Africa. This is interesting as it appears to show that a science denial position held by one person, in a position of power can have catastrophic effects. Another example would be G Bush Jnr during his term in the Whitehouse and the subject of stem cell research*.


As Far As I Know = AFAIK
*As an aside his attitude did a power of good to UK research in this area! Thanks GWB Jr.

Thanks for the thoughtful post. The video was well worth watching.

The bit that got me thinking was this paragraph, I'd just like to clarify if I have understood you correctly.

Quote from: "KebertX"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 dispute the underlined because I consider the very basis of discussion and argument to be telling someone what they think is wrong. One may do this actively 'You're wrong' or passively 'Prove me wrong' or demonstrably 'I think this', but the purpose is still there, to change the world view of your interlocutor to match one's own. If one tells somebody they are wrong they are quite at liberty to disagree with one, so I think the term Though Policing (or at least my interpretation of the phrase) is a little brutal(?) in this context.

Quote from: "Sophus"While the vacous may not be, vacuousness in itself can be vicious. Murder may be the will to kill but willful ignorance can lead to the same result. So I don't know that one is necessarily "worse" other than that you may have a better chance at getting away with lethal stupidity such as science denial. Perhaps it's more like manslaughter.

Well the underlined is more what I was getting at because while the result of science denial can be death, it is not the intent.

Quote from: "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.

I do apologise I didn't acknowledge this excellent post earlier, I was rather caught up in the discussion  

sure the murdering itself is worse than a movement that might causing some certain reasons promotes killing.
but I think this question ultimately (in a extreme way) dressing science as the evolving power of society structure.
back to the movie example I use , yes I think if a society suddenly start to loosing it's desire of knowledge, it can still function fine,
"but it cant denial anything more in what it start with" <= I suppose this is the question mean and what we are afraid of.

science told us X and Y.
we live in a fine world base on what science have told us,
and when science tells us about Z , we denial it.
assuming that will open the gateway for we to denail X and Y. this is the part where thing start to gone wrong.

Quote from: "coltcat"sure the murdering itself is worse than a movement that might causing some certain reasons promotes killing.
but I think this question ultimately (in a extreme way) dressing science as the evolving power of society structure.
back to the movie example I use , yes I think if a society suddenly start to loosing it's desire of knowledge, it can still function fine,
"but it cant denial anything more in what it start with" <= I suppose this is the question mean and what we are afraid of.

science told us X and Y.
we live in a fine world base on what science have told us,
and when science tells us about Z , we denial it.
assuming that will open the gateway for we to denail X and Y. this is the part where thing start to gone wrong.

I would agree with you that if science denial (or put another way reality denial) becomes the prevalent view again (it always used to be) then humanity is screwed big time. In the past reality denial didn't threaten the whole ecosystem of our planet, just the person drinking mercury in an attempt to live forever, nowadays the collective denial of global warming could pretty much destroy this planet as a worthwhile place to live.

Quote from: "Tank"Thanks for the thoughtful post. The video was well worth watching.

The bit that got me thinking was this paragraph, I'd just like to clarify if I have understood you correctly.

Quote from: "KebertX"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 dispute the underlined because I consider the very basis of discussion and argument to be telling someone what they think is wrong. One may do this actively 'You're wrong' or passively 'Prove me wrong' or demonstrably 'I think this', but the purpose is still there, to change the world view of your interlocutor to match one's own. If one tells somebody they are wrong they are quite at liberty to disagree with one, so I think the term Though Policing (or at least my interpretation of the phrase) is a little brutal(?) in this context.

Well argued, Tank, and a very incisive observation.  However, if I may presume, I will modify KebertX's point slightly.  Argument does, by it's very nature, intend the refutation of all but one among opposing views (or perhaps it results in a synthesis of the presented views, so all participants change their views, if only slightly), and this is a marvellous tool for getting at the truth (while we must admit that its capability in this is limited by the skill and knowledge of its practitioners).  I would never wish to limit this in any way whatever, it is the cornerstone of freedom of speech, to be free to tell someone they are wrong, whatever their rank and position, and to be allowed to defend that position with whatever ability and knowledge you posses.  And, as you point out, this liberty must also be extended to one's opponent.  I think where KebertX, and others, possibly myself, are getting hung-up is with an implication of your equation of Science Denial to murder: that if it is wrong to deny science, to the very same extent that it is wrong to murder, then society would have every right to protect itself by outlawing science-denial and punishing its proponents.  Which would be Thought Policing.  Aruging against science denial, with all the passion at our command, and with all reason and even with the object to shame our opponents into changing their position - this I have no problem with.  Instituting actual punishments, which would seem to be the implication of equating SD with murder - there is where it gets sticky for me.  I know this is not what you have suggested outright, but I don't know how you can escape this implication, if your comparison is correct.  Even equating SD with the legally "lesser" crime of manslaughter is problematic - manslaughter is also punishable by law.

And yet...and yet - having said ALL of this...if two parents were to allow their child to die by refusing to seek medical attention for a treatable condition on religious grounds (or conspiracy theorist grounds)...I quite think I would, in every way, support convicting them of brutal negligence and manslaughter.  Once their arguments against science cause them to actually act, or to refrain from an act, in a manner that results in the death of another, then it is my view that they are fair game.  If "science denial" means only speaking against science, well, a person is free to be an idiot.  If, however, it means supporting action or inaction that leads, directly or indirectly, to deaths, then we have a problem.  In practice this may amount to splitting hairs, because, as others have pointed out, one influential person merely speaking against the validity of the scientific method can cause massive harm.

In relation to a person's speach and thought, it is tricky for me.  How are we, for example, to handle a case where a person is not arguing against science itself, but only the scientific mainstream, and vociferously arguing a position counter to that currently in ascendence?  Do we give them one shot to prove their point, and if they cannot do so, ban the further advocacy of a position?  Two strikes?  Three?

Quote from: "Tank"Thanks for the thoughtful post. The video was well worth watching.

The bit that got me thinking was this paragraph, I'd just like to clarify if I have understood you correctly.

    KebertX wrote: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 dispute the underlined because I consider the very basis of discussion and argument to be telling someone what they think is wrong. One may do this actively 'You're wrong' or passively 'Prove me wrong' or demonstrably 'I think this', but the purpose is still there, to change the world view of your interlocutor to match one's own. If one tells somebody they are wrong they are quite at liberty to disagree with one, so I think the term Though Policing (or at least my interpretation of the phrase) is a little brutal(?) in this context.

I'm sorry, allow me to clarify. By putting Murder and Science Denial on the same level, it creates the insinuation that Science Denial should be criminalized (like it's less serious counterpart: Murder). So I was too quick to bridge that gap, but you see my point, right? It's not wrong to simply tell a person that their thoughts are wrong, it is wrong to have a society regard their thoughts as crime, because that is, of course, Thought Crime.

So I am amending that statement, because you're absolutely right. If we can't dispute other people's thoughts, then society would come to a screeching halt.

Quote from: "Tank"Thanks for the thoughtful post. The video was well worth watching.

The bit that got me thinking was this paragraph, I'd just like to clarify if I have understood you correctly.

    KebertX wrote: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 dispute the underlined because I consider the very basis of discussion and argument to be telling someone what they think is wrong. One may do this actively 'You're wrong' or passively 'Prove me wrong' or demonstrably 'I think this', but the purpose is still there, to change the world view of your interlocutor to match one's own. If one tells somebody they are wrong they are quite at liberty to disagree with one, so I think the term Though Policing (or at least my interpretation of the phrase) is a little brutal(?) in this context.

I'm sorry, allow me to clarify. By putting Murder and Science Denial on the same level, it creates the insinuation that Science Denial should be criminalized (like it's less serious counterpart: Murder). So I was too quick to bridge that gap, but you see my point, right? It's not wrong to simply tell a person that their thoughts are wrong, it is wrong to have a society regard their thoughts as crime, because that is, of course, Thought Crime.

So I am amending that statement, because you're absolutely right. If we can't dispute other people's thoughts, then society would come to a screeching halt.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"

Quote from: "Tank"Thanks for the thoughtful post. The video was well worth watching.

The bit that got me thinking was this paragraph, I'd just like to clarify if I have understood you correctly.

Quote from: "KebertX"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 dispute the underlined because I consider the very basis of discussion and argument to be telling someone what they think is wrong. One may do this actively 'You're wrong' or passively 'Prove me wrong' or demonstrably 'I think this', but the purpose is still there, to change the world view of your interlocutor to match one's own. If one tells somebody they are wrong they are quite at liberty to disagree with one, so I think the term Though Policing (or at least my interpretation of the phrase) is a little brutal(?) in this context.

Well argued, Tank, and a very incisive observation.  However, if I may presume, I will modify KebertX's point slightly.  Argument does, by it's very nature, intend the refutation of all but one among opposing views (or perhaps it results in a synthesis of the presented views, so all participants change their views, if only slightly), and this is a marvellous tool for getting at the truth (while we must admit that its capability in this is limited by the skill and knowledge of its practitioners).  I would never wish to limit this in any way whatever, it is the cornerstone of freedom of speech, to be free to tell someone they are wrong, whatever their rank and position, and to be allowed to defend that position with whatever ability and knowledge you posses.  And, as you point out, this liberty must also be extended to one's opponent.  I think where KebertX, and others, possibly myself, are getting hung-up is with an implication of your equation of Science Denial to murder: that if it is wrong to deny science, to the very same extent that it is wrong to murder, then society would have every right to protect itself by outlawing science-denial and punishing its proponents.  Which would be Thought Policing.  Aruging against science denial, with all the passion at our command, and with all reason and even with the object to shame our opponents into changing their position - this I have no problem with.  Instituting actual punishments, which would seem to be the implication of equating SD with murder - there is where it gets sticky for me.  I know this is not what you have suggested outright, but I don't know how you can escape this implication, if your comparison is correct.  Even equating SD with the legally "lesser" crime of manslaughter is problematic - manslaughter is also punishable by law.

At no point would I call for or agree with the criminalisation of science denial. That would be Thought Policing of the worst kind. If such legislation were ever proposed I would oppose it with all the force I could as freedom of thought and freedom of expression are the only things that truly underpin all the other freedoms we enjoy. The people that put Thabo Mbeki in power are are every bit as responsible as he is for those deaths.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"And yet...and yet - having said ALL of this...if two parents were to allow their child to die by refusing to seek medical attention for a treatable condition on religious grounds (or conspiracy theorist grounds)...I quite think I would, in every way, support convicting them of brutal negligence and manslaughter.  Once their arguments against science cause them to actually act, or to refrain from an act, in a manner that results in the death of another, then it is my view that they are fair game.  If "science denial" means only speaking against science, well, a person is free to be an idiot.  If, however, it means supporting action or inaction that leads, directly or indirectly, to deaths, then we have a problem.  In practice this may amount to splitting hairs, because, as others have pointed out, one influential person merely speaking against the validity of the scientific method can cause massive harm.

In this case the deaths of the children would be the responsibility of the parents and a terrible, but necessary, price to pay for freedom of though. The beliefs of a parent do not excuse the deaths of the children, they may explain them, but they don't excuse them. Any more than the beliefs of Muslins excuse their stoning of adulterous women.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"In relation to a person's speach and thought, it is tricky for me.  How are we, for example, to handle a case where a person is not arguing against science itself, but only the scientific mainstream, and vociferously arguing a position counter to that currently in ascendence?  Do we give them one shot to prove their point, and if they cannot do so, ban the further advocacy of a position?  Two strikes?  Three?

We have to put up with the BS if we expect to say what we want or all we become are hypocrites winning by default.

If the scientific method is to be a valued tool it has to stand up to anything and everything thrown at it or it simply becomes that which it attempts to defeat, dogma. If it is the right meme for the job, explaining reality, then it will ultimately rout pretenders to the crown such as ID and superstition.

So to re-clarify my position. While I think the effects of science denial are ultimately worse than murder there is nothing we can do about that except fight science denial with science fact.

Quote from: "KebertX"

Quote from: "Tank"Thanks for the thoughtful post. The video was well worth watching.

The bit that got me thinking was this paragraph, I'd just like to clarify if I have understood you correctly.

    KebertX wrote: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 dispute the underlined because I consider the very basis of discussion and argument to be telling someone what they think is wrong. One may do this actively 'You're wrong' or passively 'Prove me wrong' or demonstrably 'I think this', but the purpose is still there, to change the world view of your interlocutor to match one's own. If one tells somebody they are wrong they are quite at liberty to disagree with one, so I think the term Though Policing (or at least my interpretation of the phrase) is a little brutal(?) in this context.

I'm sorry, allow me to clarify. By putting Murder and Science Denial on the same level, it creates the insinuation that Science Denial should be criminalized (like it's less serious counterpart: Murder). So I was too quick to bridge that gap, but you see my point, right? It's not wrong to simply tell a person that their thoughts are wrong, it is wrong to have a society regard their thoughts as crime, because that is, of course, Thought Crime.

So I am amending that statement, because you're absolutely right. If we can't dispute other people's thoughts, then society would come to a screeching halt.

Crossed wires earlier I think. While in my head I was equating science denial to murder I never meant it should be comparable under the law, the thought never actually crossed my mind until TBJ mentioned it in his post. One can't criminalise thoughts.

I'm told communication is a wonderful thing, when it happens  

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "coltcat"sure the murdering itself is worse than a movement that might causing some certain reasons promotes killing.
but I think this question ultimately (in a extreme way) dressing science as the evolving power of society structure.
back to the movie example I use , yes I think if a society suddenly start to loosing it's desire of knowledge, it can still function fine,
"but it cant denial anything more in what it start with" <= I suppose this is the question mean and what we are afraid of.

science told us X and Y.
we live in a fine world base on what science have told us,
and when science tells us about Z , we denial it.
assuming that will open the gateway for we to denail X and Y. this is the part where thing start to gone wrong.

I would agree with you that if science denial (or put another way reality denial) becomes the prevalent view again (it always used to be) then humanity is screwed big time. In the past reality denial didn't threaten the whole ecosystem of our planet, just the person drinking mercury in an attempt to live forever, nowadays the collective denial of global warming could pretty much destroy this planet as a worthwhile place to live.

yeah , we've got no way back now.
we've enjoy too much things brought by science or reasoning for too long.
we are already addictied to it.  witch is a good thing
if we want to denail knowledge-seeking , we shouldve done it like 2000 years ago. it's too late for now.
from now on we can only working on how not to get us killed in process of expanding our knowledge.

what I'm thinking is science denial only become distructive when we have absolute relation to it. and the world today certainly dont have enough chips to gamble on this game.

cats dont know how to build a coffee machine , it they surely lives well without knowing it.

I'm not sure if science denial and murder are the same type of phenomenon. Murder is a particular sort of act, defined in law. Science denial is more of an attitude, a state of mind. So its not really comparing like with like.

The consequences of denying science/ reality can indeed be horrendous. As can the consequences of pseudo-science (a slightly different issue)- look at Nazi 'racial science', or the 'science' that has led many parents to reject vaccination for their children. The moral of which is: stick with reality.

People in leadership positions should be held responsible for catastrophes that result from Science Denial. In a court of law, fair trial, etc..