Forum Topic

It's a difficult one: I'm concerned about controls of the internet because of the need to protect free speech and those exercising it who are vulnerable in authoritarian countries. However, where statements fly in the face of overwhelming evidence - does anyone really believe the earth is flat or the universe is only 6,000 years old? - I struggle. I suppose one has to differentiate between statements of facts based on evidence and opinions based on belief. Some opposing interpretation of facts are just a misunderstanding of statistics or risk analysis, or incorrect analysis of evidence. In some fields of science the evidence may be inconclusive; for example, the nature of dark matter - there are valid opposing views regarding that as no one has found any relevant particles just measurements of something that doesn't fit expected models. Sometimes it's a deliberate misinterpretation of evidence or the obfuscation of it - and aside from conspiracy theories this may be done for commercial reasons (remember thalidomide, or tabacco companies denial of smoking and lung cancer?), political (linked to controlling or believing controlled or biased media - Russia's war in Ukraine) or just a refusal to admit an error (MMR vaccines scare). Also, knowledge does evolve and change overtime - Einstein supersedes Newton with regard to the laws of mechanics - and I believe biological categories now put fungi closer to animals than vegetables after genetic analysis. What I do notice is that those arguing their conspiracy theories seem opposed to discussing an potential weaknesses in their interpretation of facts. Interestingly I had a discussion with some fellow OU science tutor and students a couple about Fred Hoyle, an eminent scientist in his day, and the fact he came out with some rather dubious statements in later life; we wondered if the aging process or early signs of dementia made one more susceptible to accepting theories based on prejudices without substantive evidence? It's not just what conspiracy theorists are arguing it's the uncompromising, often rude and unevidenced way they argue it. I don't have an answer: one can ignore erroneous views but not arguing sensibly against them helps propagation of such ideas, and sometimes such arguments may uncover a new truth - remember Galileo and the Catholic church? But then Galileo had hard scientific facts to back up his case that others could replicate not some YouTube videos of dubious provenance.I also wonder how the online harms bill will affect poorly moderated sites such as these?

Michael Ixer ● 1372d