The cost of a free thought is that some people will believe in some weird stuff.
I think this is much preferable to the alternative of a controlled ecosystem of ideas, for which there are no positive historical examples and many negative ones.
I think this is much preferable to the alternative of a controlled ecosystem of ideas, for which there are no positive historical examples and many negative ones.
The alternative isn't "Ban this sick filth!" but to apply pressure to the Times and other outlets which frame pseudoscientific crap as being on a level with actual knowledge.
The New York Times goes on and on about 12 people on Facebook repeating weird ideas about vaccines being dangerous. They are Republicans so that must be condemned. Because it's not scientific.
On the other hand, water witching is new age. So they're Democrats. So it's OK for the New York Times to give a wink and a nod to the idea that these Democrats just might know more than scientists.
It inconceivable how a Republican would believe an unscientific idea about vaccines being bad. It's natural to see how a Democrat would believe an unscientific idea about water witching being good.