"Science Denialism", academic freedom, and philosophy of science
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti
An off-hand, off-topic comment has kicked off a very interesting discussion about the philosophy of science, and how we figure out whether our understanding of the world is scientific or not.
In the thread where the discussion began, user loldier said:
>> "Propaganda" used to be a valid word for disseminating information. Now, it's a slur and an all too easy way to dismiss valid science. I'm beginning to think that we should blow up the internet. It brings all kinds of creepy things out from underneath their rocks.
Science denialism should be punishable by law like holocaust denialism is in some parts of the world. Take climate change for instance. There's a consensus on that. People who jump to conclusions by speculating on their sofas are no match for a scientist no matter what they claim while throwing mud at everyone's eyes. <<
Do you think the state should be given the power to legislate "truth", and punish those who dissent as heretics? History, from the Spanish Inquisition to Stalinist Russia, teaches that this is a bad idea. Hitler's Nazi state was based on the "science" of eugenics, and you'd have been imprisoned or killed for pointing out that eugenics is not very scientific.
I think the problem with loldier's proposal is best summed up by Noam Chomsky, in his comments on the treatment of Robert Faurisson, a French Professor of Literature, and alleged "holocaust denier":
"A professor of French literature was suspended from teaching on grounds that he could not be protected from violence, after privately printing pamphlets questioning the existence of gas chambers. He was then brought to trial for "falsification of History," and later condemned for this crime, the first time that a modern Western state openly affirmed the Stalinist-Nazi doctrine that the state will determine historical truth and punish deviation from it... It is a poor service to the memory of the victims of the holocaust to adopt a central doctrine of their murderers."
Do you think the state should be given the power to legislate "truth", and punish those who dissent as heretics?
Of course not. Like onpon4 replied:
No view, no matter how disgusting, is as disgusting as censorship. Where holocaust denial is illegal, that is an injustice. Where showing a swastika is illegal, that is an injustice. Freedom of speech is essential.
I am a member!
I agree with onpon4 and Magic Banana about free speech. I am a staunch defender of free speech.
I will just point out the obvious by saying that sometimes other laws can conflict with freedom of speech. Then the courts have to sort it out. A trivial example would be somebody marching into my office, standing on my desk, and expressing their free speech. Their free speech right is absolutely essential in every case, including this contrived one. However, get the f*** off of my desk!
Sometimes the expression of free speech is mixed in with violating some laws--like breaking-and-entering, or vandalism, and so on. It is a fine line, however, as there are a lot of laws, and authorities like the police are often given latitude in how to interpret them. For example, a law against 'loitering' is probably pretty broad and would allow the authorities to shut up a lot of public free speeches. So it is a question of what laws can be violated to uphold freedom of speech and which should not be violated. This is to say nothing of when a right--such as free speech--conflicts with another person's rights.
In other words, the expression of one party's free speech (like the neo-nazis, or the ACLU) may break other laws and that has to be taken into account when evaluating how just a particular act is (i.e. it may be just in not censoring free speech, but unjust regarding other rights and/or laws.
Everybody must be free to tell anything in the public space: on her *own* website, *own* newspaper, *own* radio, etc. And anyone owning such a medium can publish/broadcast whoever she wants... and deny publications to others. For instance, Trisquel's community guidelines are not against freedom of speech (any community is entitled to its own rules): https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/trisquel-community-guidelines
The thread where the discussion kicked off that lead to the above quote about burning science deniers at the stake (so to speak) is here:
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/windows-and-ubuntu-might-become-same-thing
I am a member!
Mazel Tov! Let's post a link to this thread from the one about canonical/ms. I'll do it now.
EDIT: Done
I am a member!
I find it rather ironic that those who strongly argue that people should have the freedom to use, modify, and distribute software in any way that they deem fit, seem to have no problem with the idea that people should not have the freedom to believe what they want. So, it's totally okay for the government to imprison people who don't believe in the holocaust, but it's definitely not okay for them to tell you that you must use Times New Roman, instead of Calibri?
The sword cuts both ways; if you truly value freedom, then while it is acceptable to rationally disagree with a person's beliefs, you can't demand that a person's beliefs be different, which is what a lot of the replies in that previous post sounded like. Using terms like "conspiracy theorist" and "holocaust denier" adds nothing productive to the conversation at all; they are catch-all terms that are designed to refute a position by negative association, not with actual evidence.
As a lawyer I can explain you this:
In my country (and probably in yours) there is a crime or felony called: statutory criminal offense (in spanish "apologia del delito").
Freedom does not mean anarchy, freedom means respect for your liberty as long as you respect others.
But when you stop respecting other's people freedom, you probably are doing something wrong, and in the most cases it is a crime.
Also when you cheer those who commit crimes, you are not supporting freedom, on the contrary, you are in favor of those who are against freedom. That is also a crime "statutory criminal offense"
And the state should not allow people to be against freedom. You can belive whatever you want as long as those belives do not mean restricting the others. Thats when the state has to put you a stop.
I am a member!
"So, it's totally okay for the government to imprison people who don't believe in the holocaust, but it's definitely not okay for them to tell you that you must use Times New Roman, instead of Calibri?"
What did I miss? I don't recall anybody here saying that we should imprison anybody because of their beliefs.
People here are entitled to have their beliefs too. They have a right to discourage certain discourse. Just like it isn't wrong to discourage a holocaust denier from spouting their lies. It is one thing to say preventing that person from using their free speech is wrong. It is another to say that we encourage all expressions of speech, no matter how ignorant or harmful.
You will notice that nobody has, to my knowledge at least, been banned from these discussions! Nobody is being prevented from making their ignorant statements. onpon4 and Magic Banana and others are trying to discourage certain discourse that is inappropriate for these forums. Discouraging and preventing are two different things. You can bring your message somewhere and demand the right to express it. You can't demand that others will like it!
I am a member!
It's true that no one has been banned; that was not the point that I was trying to make. Rather, I am referring to the attitude displayed; even if you are not actively banning people, creating an environment where they do not feel that they can question something, even things that have been considered true for a long time, is the antithesis of freedom. Maybe the anti-vaccine position is pseudo-science, or maybe it's not; either way, we should encourage investigation, not condescending dismissal.
It is true that whether or not vaccines are harmful does have potentially far-reaching ramifications for the long-term health of society; that is a valid point, but part of freedom is allowing people to make their own choices, even if the consequences are negative. If a person is not convinced (by the same evidence that you were) that vaccines are good, and they choose not to give them to their kids, any negative consequences that follow would be the result of their actions, and they would have to deal with them.
It is unfortunate when people make decisions that have a negative effect on large groups of people, but for society to ultimately become peaceful and prosperous, people must be allowed to choose to cooperate and help each other, not be compelled by force or peer-pressured to do it; anything else is only a facade of what we truly wish to achieve as human beings. If this seems unacceptable to you, then perhaps you don't truly value freedom quite as much as your desire to promote only free software would seem to imply.
I am a member!
"I am referring to the attitude displayed"
THE attitude? There are some views that are shared more than others. Try not to lump everybody together just because you haven't achieved 100% consensus on your views.
"creating an environment"
We are all creating this environment--even you. You have this "US vs THEM" thing going on.
"people must be allowed to choose to cooperate and help each other, not be compelled by force or peer-pressured to do it"
True, so why are you trying so hard to press your view here? Let us choose to cooperate with you. Be happy that there is no facade. People are choosing, they are choosing their own views which sometimes align with yours and sometimes do not align with yours.
I am a member!
For the record, my replies are directed at the people who used inflammatory/denigrative language in the thread that sparked this one: pragmatist, onpon4, root_vegetable, loldier, and Magic Banana.
I'm not "trying so hard to press my views" on anyone; that's the whole point of what I said. My goal is to convince people, and if they choose not to believe as I do, I just have to live with that. Just as we believe that computer code should be available for everyone to examine and modify according to their wishes, the "code" of our lives (i.e., our worldviews/beliefs) should be the same; if someone finds a belief that is commonly held, but they cannot accept it, they should be free to remove that line of code. When they compile it, they may get an error, and undesirable consequences might follow, but denying them that freedom is more harmful to society in the long run.
And denial is not merely putting a gun to someone's head, or writing a law that says they cannot do something. It is also creating an environment that dissuades them from critically analysing every belief, by making them feel stupid for questioning something; that is the kind of denial that I saw in that thread, and that concerns me here. If you believe that testable, observable, repeatable evidence supports a position, present it; then, the onus is no longer on you, but on the person to whom you presented it, to either accept or reject it. It is not your job or responsibility to try and berate a person into one position or another. Science doesn't do this (since "science" was mentioned so many times in that thread); it is, by its very nature, dispassionate. Such an approach is also unhelpful, since a person who believes vaccines are harmful is still not going to take them, or give them to his children.
The initiation of force never solves problems in the long run; it only masks the symptoms, so cajoling people into acting a particular way (i.e., giving their kids vaccines, even if they don't believe them to work) will not solve the problem (i.e., the incorrect beliefs that led to anti-vaccination thinking), and thus is not even beneficial toward the very end for which you all claimed (whether implicitly or explicitly) to respond to that poster.
In a free society, the best ideas will eventually win out, and if, for example, the use of vaccines proves itself to be the best way of protecting people from certain diseases, it will be adopted by the vast majority of people. There might still be a minority who hold out, for whatever reason, but that is the nature of freedom; you can never have a perfect consensus.
You don't need to ask everybody out there. The scientific community agrees on the benefits of vaccines. That's called a consensus. A few skeptics don't change that.
Consider this. In Finland and the Scandinavian countries all citizens are insured. Call it what you like -- Obamacare, socialism or regulation -- I don't care. You can't ruin the government vaccination program by refusing to parttake, actively recruiting people to your bandwagon and disseminating misinformation and still claim free healthcare. Free as in "gratis". The costs of the national healthcare are remunerated by taxes. If you're willing to pay for the damage done from your own wallet, go ahead but stop propagating ill-practise.
National health comes first, individual freedoms come second. If enough people believe this crap, those vaccinated will have less protection. It all goes to waste. Epidemics will run rampant. When your freedoms run against the well-being of the whole nation, and proved so, your 'freedoms' are better ignored. With freedom comes responsibility.
Last but not least, no-one is entitled to a platform on any subject anywhere at all times. Take your ill-conceived rebellion someplace else. Indiana is one place where you're tolerated and look what a disaster it is.
In the past in my lineage there has been tuberculosis and polio, all because there was no vaccination program at the time. She died and the other one was crippled. In Thailand, where I reside now, I've seen the eradication of poliomyelitis almost entirely in a timespan of twenty years thanks to a national vaccination program. I'm very grateful there's a vaccine against hepatitis A and B now. They're very easy to contract in Asia. I hope there will be something against malaria soon. I've been bitten by a dog and, without an injection would've been risking rabies, tetanus as well.
Beware of false balance: Are the views of the scientific community accurately portrayed?
I am a member!
"Just as we believe that computer code should be available for everyone to examine and modify according to their wishes, the "code" of our lives (i.e., our worldviews/beliefs) should be the same"
This is a false analogy. What you are trying to do with this statement, and some earlier statements, is to equate your opinion with this communities free software values. The point is that you know we all agree on free software, so if you equate your opinions or world view with free software then somehow we must either agree with you or not believe in free software
1.) We agree and feel strongly that software should be free
2.) We don't all agree with your opinions
3.) Your opinions and the idea that software should be free are the same
your conclusion: either 1. or 2. must be wrong. We must agree with you, or we don't believe in free software! Point 3. is the false one. Computer code and world views are not analogous. It is poetic, but simply wrong. The world is not explainable in one dimension. Different subjects have different, specific, solutions.
To say, "I'll distribute my code so people can use and modify it as they wish." Is not the same as "I'll disseminate my views so people can use and modify those views in any way they wish." This is why rms says to put the CC no derivatives on his speeches because, he says, 'this is a statement of my point of view'. We want people to use our code however they like as long as they give others that right. We don't want to give others the right to take our opinions and twist and pervert them into something we didn't mean!
"My goal is to convince people, and if they choose not to believe as I do, I just have to live with that."
This is well-stated. I am glad you've chosen to live with disagreement.
I am a member!
I was not trying to say that you must either agree with me, or else you don't believe in free software; I was merely trying to point out that if you believe in the values that under-gird the free software philosophy (e.g., total freedom over one's computing), it makes sense to apply those values to a more general category of human nature: one's beliefs. And as with software freedom, freedom of belief is not the same as freedom from the consequences of those beliefs.
This is not to say that I want people to be able to twist my words and make them mean whatever they want, but rather that, once a belief is shared, people are free to take all, some, or none of it. In other words, I am not arguing that it is reasonable for someone say that I said "X," when I really said "Y"; I'm arguing that, if I say "X," then it is acceptable for someone else to come along and add to "X," call that modified belief their own (X1, if you will), and spread it with others.
I admit that this analogy is not perfect (none indeed are), but it was solely intended to to demonstrate that if freedom is valuable, its value should extend beyond the software that we use on our computers: to far more important aspects of our lives, like the long-term survival of our species.
If you believe that testable, observable, repeatable evidence supports a position, present it; then, the onus is no longer on you, but on the person to whom you presented it, to either accept or reject it.
In the thread in question, davidpgil writes that he has the intuition that "Windows and Ubuntu might become the same thing", he is "guessing perhaps ubuntu will keep including more and more blobs that it might make Ubuntu difficult to base a distro from", he fears "[snaps] could be used to "blobify" free apps", etc. Interestingly all these quotes actually end up with question marks: https://trisquel.info/forum/windows-and-ubuntu-might-become-same-thing
Questions that he does not even try to answer. Absolutely nothing he wrote is based on facts. What evidence can you present to someone making things up from thin air? He is the one who must provide evidences! Instead, davidpgil piles up FUD that probably reaches an apogee with:
I know that may sound unthinkable but Ian Murdock died mysteriously (supposedly from suicide) a few months back. I know nobody knows the answer to this, but I see it as potentially connected.
The only possible reply that can be made looks like the one onpon4 politely wrote:
If you don't know, then please don't spread half-baked conspiracy theories. It doesn't do anyone any good.
But then comes the victimization: https://trisquel.info/forum/windows-and-ubuntu-might-become-same-thing#comment-94362 and below. And the lies: "my view is perfectly valid and I have justified", "there are other [reason]s of course"... except that not a single fact backed any of the expressed "concerns". And when I asked "What reasons then?", I received no reply.
I am a member!
I agree that speculation is unhelpful, and I was not intending to suggest that asking questions, without seeking actual answers, is in any way a productive use of one's time. I can also see why you would find problems with his answers to your questions.
My issue arises when I start seeing phrases like "conspiracy theorist," "holocaust-denier," and "pseudo-science." These phrases, and ones like them, are used as a substitute for an actual argument (e.g., "that person is wrong, because he's quoting pseudo-science," or "that person is wrong, because he's a holocaust-denier"). A label does not make a person incorrect, and I think that using language like this doesn't help people who have legitimate questions about controversial issues. Freedom means freedom to be wrong, and some people, through no fault of their own, have grown up with incorrect beliefs. Rather than ridicule them for being stupid, we should attempt to understand how they got there, and help guide them toward a more rational worldview.
Another problem with these phrases is that they detract from the purpose of the thread; if the thread is not about the holocaust, or conspiracy theorists (topics I think are inappropriate for a forum dedicated to free software), adding them in serves no valuable purpose. It would have made much more sense, to me at least, if those particular responses under consideration were directed at his points about Ubuntu, rather than vaccines and the like.
> My issue arises when I start seeing phrases like "conspiracy theorist," "holocaust-denier," and "pseudo-science." These phrases, and ones like them, are used as a substitute for an actual argument (e.g., "that person is wrong, because he's quoting pseudo-science," or "that person is wrong, because he's a holocaust-denier").
This is a strawman. No one said that anyone was wrong because they are a conspiracy theorist. I talked about conspiracy theories. In all of those cases, I was talking about conspiracy theories in general, but even if I had said that something specific was just a conspiracy theory, that would not be an ad-hominem as you suggest.
The only mention of conspiracy theorists (by root_vegetable) was not an ad-hominem, either. It wasn't even talking about a specific person. It was used as a derogatory term, but it was appended to an actual argument, not a substitute for one.
Rather, I am referring to the attitude displayed; even if you are not actively banning people, creating an environment where they do not feel that they can question something, even things that have been considered true for a long time, is the antithesis of freedom.
Only questioning and never actually trying to give answers by studying the topic has a name: FUD.
And again: any community is entitled to its own rules. Freedom of speech is about telling whatever you want on your *own* website, *own* newspaper, *own* radio, etc.
for society to ultimately become peaceful and prosperous, people must be allowed to choose to cooperate and help each other, not be compelled by force or peer-pressured to do it
I disagree. Laws are essential to protect the weak and poor from the strong and rich. And those laws must be democratically chosen, "peer-decided" is you prefer.
I am a member!
"A label does not make a person incorrect, and I think that using language like this doesn't help people who have legitimate questions about controversial issues."
You are confusing ideas and statements with the person who has those ideas and makes those statements. We are not saying that person X is wrong. We are saying the statement person X made is not true. If we say, "stop spreading lies", we are not calling you a liar. You may have heard those ideas from someone else and believe them to be true. A liar is someone who knows they are saying a falsehood. How can we know if you are a liar or not? We cannot. We can say whether an idea or statement is untruthful. We should say an idea is untruthful when it is not true. We should call someone else out on an untruth whether or not that untruth spreads FUD.
This raises two larger questions that hover over this whole discourse. First, how do we know what is true and what is untrue? This is an epistemological question (i.e. how do we know what we know). Second, what are the relationships between things like truth, freedom, justice, right and wrong, etc...
First, how do we know what we know? Well, that depends. There are many systems of knowing. In some cultures, one knows what is true based on what their religious leader or text says is true. In others it may be based on the credentials of the person giving the ideas. In others it may be based on who is strongest or yells the loudest. In others the scientific method may provide the truth. There are many systems of knowing, and what passes as truth in one may not pass as truth in the other. Several of the more prolific posters in these threads have scientific epistemology as their basis for the truth. The scientific method.
What is the scientific method? The idea is that we know something to be true if it can demonstrated through replicated experiments. By replicated, we mean under all the same conditions. Somebody can have a hypothesis, create an experiment, get results supporting their hypothesis, and nobody else can duplicate those results. These results are not accepted as true. That does not necessarily mean they are false. Perhaps other types experiments need to be conducted. So the process continues.
A brief aside regarding scientific experiments: The placebo effect can account for a substantial percentage of the results. A 30% placebo effect is not at all unusual. That means that if you do an experiment with 1,000 people, you have 300 people who genuinely believe it works and will testify to that effect. Proponents of certain unsubstantiated treatments or theories bring this evidence but ignore the much larger amount of evidence that contradicts it.
Second, what are the relationships between Truth and Justice and Freedom? These things all exist and have developed relationships. That does not mean they are the same. You can believe in Freedom in general and not Free Software. Free software has a very specific, precise, definition. If it has the four freedoms it is free, if it has less than those four it is not free. You can have a dictatorship that enforces these four freedoms and therefore has free software. Non-free software is an injustice, it should never exist. For a society not to value the freedom of its citizens is an injustice. This does not mean that these citizens should be able to distribute, use and modify one another. Those concepts apply to software. The relationship between these two areas of freedom is Justice. If a person believes in Justice they will be sympathetic to other just causes.
An aside regarding the Law: In some societies, Law is determined at least in part based on evidence. Just like science deals with evidence. The Law and Science are bedfellows. So when somebody believes something is true based on science, they often think it is what is just. Often that is the case. So people who are basing the truth of vaccines on the scientific method, will tend to have an upper hand when it comes to getting their way in the Law. Thus the idea that people denying their children vaccines should go to jail.
Conclusion: When two groups interact that have different ways of knowing what is true, big disagreements happen--like in this thread. Those arguing here that it is true that vaccines are essential, are basing their knowledge of the truth on the scientific method. If this is also your way of knowing, then you need to review the literature and see who is right. If you have a different epistemology, then, assuming your view is supported by your epistemology, you can agree to disagree. You can agree on the principles of justice, but if your idea of the truth is different, you are applying that justice to different beliefs. As far as Freedom, it's application toward people and its application toward software are not the same thing. You can live in a society where the people do not have Free press, or Freedom of assembly, but they have Free software to use.
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti