Hacker News Reader

Comment by sudojudo | Hacker News Reader

I have to disagree. Many people are trying to suppress pseudoscience; not because we fear it is true, but because disinformation is harmful to society as a whole. For example, anti-vaxers degrading herd immunity, or astrologists conning vulnerable people out of their savings, or a climate change denier dismantling the EPA... there are far too many examples to list!

Each facet of nonsense you've mentioned is being battled by one group of skeptics or another. Off the top of my head, there's the work of James Randi, Richard Dawkins, Brian Dunning, and Steven Novella. Those people aren't fighting ideas they're afraid are true, they fear the harmful outcome of misplaced beliefs.

If people weren't battling pseudoscience, you'd see a lot more of it in your day-to-day life, and society as a whole would be much worse off. That's not speculation, it's a solid fact.

View on HN

Nobody is attempting to forcibly suppress pseudoscience. Speaking out against it is not "battling" it. I've read Randi's book, he's not trying to suppress misplaced beliefs. He's ridiculing them.

Carl Sagan's books ridiculed astrology. He made no attempt to suppress it.

Huge difference.

Mel Brooks once was asked why he wrote a comedy about Hitler (The Producers). He replied that ridicule was the best way to oppose bad ideas.

Not suppressing them.

I would wholeheartedly endorse legislation against anti-vax garbage in its more extreme forms. That is not because I fear it is true.

> That is not because I fear it is true.

Are you a scientist researching vaccines and autism? No? Do you know that leading scientists are often wrong, very wrong, especially about health issues? Scientists were wrong about dietary fat causing heart attacks, for example. Isn't it a good thing that we didn't make questioning them illegal?

Besides, you'll just legitimize their opinions if you make them illegal.

I am a medical doctor. I feel comfortable with the current state of research on the safety of vaccines for endemic diseases of childhood, annual influenza, and pneumococcus.

I don’t really care whether they feel legitimized; I see the actual physical harm their fear-mongering (and often outright fraud) causes.

There comes a point where the weight of data is such that people are not questioning unsettled science, they are merely lying. You’re welcome to paint a slippery slope if you like, but this is a difference in degree that is a difference in kind. Is there a line drawing fallacy at play? Yes, which is why my original post was specifically worded “the more extreme types.”

To your original point, which I think you have spent a lot of time shifting goal posts on: I would wholeheartedly censor these people, and not because I fear there is any germ of truth in what they are saying.

> I would wholeheartedly censor these people

And I am sad that you would dispense with free speech rights so cheaply. I have family members who fought in terrible bloody battles to ensure we have these rights.

Be very, very careful what you wish for.

> I feel comfortable with the current state of research

I'm sure you do. I was also comfortable with doctors confidently recommending I eat margarine instead of butter for decades. What shit advice that turned out to be. Who knows how many years off my life from heart disease that has gotten me.

I like that people constantly question the things you are "comfortable" with. It keeps science honest. In fact, questioning the conventional wisdom is what science is all about.

You say you're an educated man. Do you know what they did to Galileo when he suggested the current state of research on the planets was wrong?

By the way, all my vaccinations are up to date.

Semantics? Don't be daft...

Speaking out against something is battling it, battle is a verb in this context. Both Oxford and Webster agree [0,1].

Forceful suppression of pseudoscience can be achieved through law and education, see the Scopes Trial [2]. This is another with thousands of examples, from women's right to vote, to smoking cigarettes.

[0] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/battle

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/battle

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

Yes, but in the context of a thread about using force, it's important to make a distinction.

Stop with the red herrings and address the actual argument.

You didn't say anything about force in your initial statement. Maybe you forgot to mention enough context? (And no, forcefully does not mean using force.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com