Last year, I began a weekly lunch for all the faculty and graduate students in the department working in astronomy-related fields. Originally, the plan had been to talk about astronomy news, but it quickly became a social hour–which I think is ultimately better for the health of our graduate program than having students sit through another seminar. Anyway, I was surprised how often people, especially students, wanted to share stories about an obscure group of whom I had previously never heard, called the “flat-Earthers”. This group apparently denies that the Earth is round and embraces many other odd beliefs to deflect evidence against their core idiosyncrasy. Now, I can see such an odd group being the matter of merriment once or twice, but as the topic kept coming up, I started to feel oddly uncomfortable. Why should that be? After all, I don’t think the Earth is flat. They’re not laughing at me. I think I know now why it bothered me.
The elite seem increasingly bothered by ever smaller groups of skeptics: “flat-Earthers”, “anti-vaxers”, “climate change deniers”, “Holocaust deniers”. One might speculate that, with the rise of social media, we are only now learning to our horror what lots of people actually believe. I don’t think that’s it. It seems more likely that we are becoming increasingly intolerant of dissent. After all, the flat-Earther isn’t just wrong like our many undergraduates with incorrect ideas about the causes of the seasons and moon phases. Unlike them, he knows the scientific consensus and defies it.
The public is being trained to despise all such dissenters.
There was always some of that. In my youth, the object of scorn was “Creationism”, but that was clearly related to 20th century atheist polemics and was justified by concerns about creationists manipulating school curricula. Dissent itself was not considered sufficiently provocative. In college, I subscribed to The Skeptical Inquirer, which took upon itself to debunk UFO sightings, astrology, mediums contacting the dead, and the like. The writers vividly knew that this was unglamorous, unappreciated work in the cause of science, but somebody had to protect the public from flim-flam artists. Now it seems as if crushing dissent is seen as one of the main purposes of being a scientist or a reporter.
“Global warming deniers” are a scapegoat. No one will accept the sacrifices needed to sufficiently reduce carbon emissions. “Deniers” have nothing to do with this, but hunting them down is something we can cheaply do. Magical thinking. Global warming is the opposite of fairies: it’s supposed to magically go away when everyone starts believing in it.
If denial is such a sin, we are owed a precise numerical cutoff for a climate sensitivity parameter–the lowest one is allowed to believe the parameter is without being a denier.
Couldn’t it be that benefits outweigh risks for some vaccines but not others? Why require a blanket attitude toward them all?
Skeptics are usually more nuanced than they are given credit for. Most people called “Creationists” don’t think the Earth was created in 6 days. Every “denier” I’ve read acknowledges that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that humans have some effect on climate, that many Jews died in German captivity, and so forth.
At one time, there was unreasonable horror that some people were questioning whether AIDS is really caused by the HIV virus. Did that go away because of evidence or suppression? Now I wonder…
I’m in favor of censorship, but as with all laws, I prefer that such laws be clear and only be promulgated and enforced by appropriate authorities. What precisely are we required to believe?
Filed under: Uncategorized | 32 Comments »