In 2013 news that signalled a developing trend, a world science journalists conference panel was in a snit over “science denial,” that is, people following through on “When in doubt, doubt. If it sounds unbelievable, don’t believe it.”
Philosopher Massimo Pigliucci apparently went to a conference this year where denialism was soundly trashed and came back bound and determined to do something about it.
Bad idea. No one has a “right to be believed.” So such causes amount to unethical, illegal, or unconstitutional efforts to shut up opponents. Especially today, when “anti-science” so often just means “I think for myself.”
Here VJ Torley offers: The dangers (and odd consequences) of never questioning a scientific consensus – a reply to Chris Mooney. As in “Science denial,” politics, and religion, from a highly politicized science journalist.
Meanwhile, Mother Jones defends establishment science. Some authorities are not, it turns out, to be questioned.
Suppression of dissent has been increasing in frequency and volume, as we have noted, with university becoming an expensive form of babysitting for apparently fragile adults. (Read this before you go into debt for university.)
In one incident last year, a Scientific American blogger, Ash Jogalekar, started a Twitterstorm and got fired for un-PC comments re Feynman, despite the context.
Forrest Mims, who should know, has some interesting thoughts on SciAm’s PC police swoop. The News desk had some thoughts too: Scientific American may be owned by Nature, but it is now run by Twitter.
But in any event, naturalism’s strongest idea is that ideas are an illusion, which makes banning them sensible, for the same reasons as one would disinfect the hog barn.
Jogalekar was later heard to warn of the dangers of certainty in science.
Meanwhile, someone has noticed the usually ignored progressive war on science.
In a story that picks up some of the same themes, philosopher Brian Leiter was floating a trial balloon, Why tolerate religion?, though his cause may have fizzled somewhat when he was asked to step down from a philosophy program ranking post for uncollegial behaviour. Apparently, there are nooks and niches out there where behaviour matters, not just feelings.
Speaking of which, there was the uproar around a creationism conference that rented space at a university. A self-identified Christian who works in evolutionary biology somehow felt very fragile about that. – O’Leary for News suggested, “Either attend the event and write about it, or mind your own business.”
Really, it is getting to the point where hordes of otherwise intelligent people think they are either helpless victims or the PC police force. This can’t be good for the life of the mind.
The basic freedom of speech issue will get round to the intelligent design controversy too, of course, so stay tuned.
“Denialism” is currently in a dead heat with “creationism” for the I Think for Myself Stakes.
Follow UD News at Twitter!