Is Science Denial worse than murder?

[The Black Jester]

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.

[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.

[Tank]

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.

[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.

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.

[Tank]

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.

[Tank]

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  

[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.

[Tank]

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.

[The Black Jester]

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.

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?

[KebertX]

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.

[KebertX]

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

[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  

[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.

[Caecilian]

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.