Darryl Betts
darryllrbetts.wordpress.com
Darryl is a businessman and a post-graduate student in Philosophy at the University of Auckland, with particular interests in the philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, epistemology, logic, and AI. He holds a BSc in Computer Science and a BA in Philosophy, Logic and Computation.
There is a reason many have used the term “upside-down world” to describe the political and social landscape of the past few years. The reasoning of many in governments, institutions, and media, has not only been badly flawed – it has frequently been completely backwards. In the climate change debate and now with Covid-19, the “science denier” phrase is being used to attack and silence people who disagree with the mainstream narrative. But here’s the kicker – those people who embrace the mainstream narrative and accuse other people of being science deniers are themselves the true science deniers – and it is a terribly dangerous thing to be happening.
There are people who try to position themselves in the middle, saying that each side is as bad as the other and that moderation is the answer. I acknowledge that people doing this have good intentions – they believe that polarization can be healed if we meet in the middle. But there is more to it than this. Firstly, it is actually a fallacy of reasoning to believe that the correct answer is always at the mid-point of two opposing viewpoints.
But the real issue is this. In these so-called controversial scientific debates, we do not have a level playing field – certainly not when it comes to public discussion of the science and increasingly within the scientific world itself. There is a very clear asymmetry to this situation, which is that only one side in this fight refuses to listen to scientists who have views that dissent from the majority. Worse yet the side that refuses to listen also wants to prevent others from listening – and they are supported in this aim by governments, mainstream media and big tech.
The most common justification for rejecting minority views is that the popular view must be true because the majority of scientists agree with it. But this belief is badly mistaken. First, it may well be that the majority only seem to agree. We have seen this with the climate change debate and the slogan “97% of scientists agree”. Scratch beneath the surface of that slogan and you discover that it is not nearly so clear that there is the agreement claimed (both in type and degree). But the biggest problem with this belief in the majority is that dissent is one of the most important principles in the scientific method. Simply put – science progresses through dissent. Existing ideas are challenged and discarded or adjusted in the face of new evidence. Through this process of continual challenge, confirmation or disproof, and refinement, science progresses.
Even before the Covid-19 and climate change panic peaked, we had a live example within the academy of what happens when the principle of dissent is excluded. This is in the so called “grievance studies” subjects such as gender studies, racial studies, etc. These are topics where agreement is rewarded and dissent is stamped out, for example, students are encouraged to find new expressions of racism in our society – but never to disagree. Canadian Lyndsay Shepard was one of those who spoke out about the pressure for conformity and suppression of dissent in these areas of academia.
I am not saying that every idea put forward in these fields is necessarily wrong, but the methodology by which they operate is badly flawed. You will struggle to find any scholars in the field of racial studies arguing against the concept of “white privilege”. You are very unlikely to find a gender studies professor who argues against the claim that there is a gender wage gap (even though this claim has been heavily criticized by academics outside these fields). Students in these fields who disagree with the prescribed views do not last long there. An analogy for this kind of unchecked agreement is cancer – and many have described this section of the academy in exactly those terms. Topics like this don’t progress – just like a cancer they metastasize.
Sadly this cancer – like most cancers – did not remain where it started. It has spread to other areas of academia – for example today we have the very serious problem that departure from climate change orthodoxy is heavily discouraged if not punished, and biologists who do work that seems to disprove the claims of gender or race theorists can face severe consequences. This is devastating for the individuals concerned but it is also dangerous for society. Scientific progress that we need now more than ever just won’t happen.
So here we are again. The same thing is happening with Covid-19 and the consequences are even more imminent and dangerous. Lives are being lost because doctors have been prevented from treating people by the most effective means (restrictions on the use of Ivermectin for example), and vaccine obsessed governments and health authorities have neglected or been too slow to develop strategies and infrastructure for prevention and treatment (again an example is Ivermectin). It is also costing lives indirectly because non-Covid healthcare has been neglected, and because of public health policies such as lockdowns and now vaccine mandates, which themselves have severe health consequences either directly or because of the economic damage they do. The damage is not limited to those who die- the lives of many more people are being greatly harmed by these policies, and the harm will continue well into the future.
This is a cancer and it has lodged itself firmly in most western governments, health authorities, and the mainstream media. It has enabled politicians who become intoxicated by the power and recognition, who are consumed by the emotion of what to them is a war and a supreme duty to “keep people safe”, and who are surrounded by people who are unwilling or unable to seriously challenge the assumptions on which they are all operating. Inside their echo chamber they are convinced that anyone who disagrees with them – regardless of how well informed or well-credentialed they may be, is a conspiracy theorist, or a victim of “misinformation”. This cancer is metastasizing into frightening authoritarianism with the accompanying use of state force to suppress dissent.
So the next time someone tells you that dissent from the mainstream view is a denial of science, remind them that dissent is an essential part of science and that there are highly qualified scientists all over the world who disagree with what governments and health authorities have been doing [1] [2]. Tell them that the true science deniers are those who refuse to listen to these dissenting views or refuse to allow others to listen.
[1] Great Barrington Declaration https://gbdeclaration.org/
[2] New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out With Science https://nzdsos.com//
The following previous articles, which contain numerous references to other sources, may be of interest:
[3] Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying on Ivermectin suppression and Covid-19 false narrative https://darryllrbetts.wordpress.com/2021/06/07/bret-weinstein-and-heather-heying-on-ivermectin-suppression-and-covid-19-false-narrative/
[4] The global suppression of Ivermectin is killing people – when will authorities wake up? https://darryllrbetts.wordpress.com/2021/05/02/the-global-suppression-of-ivermectin-is-killing-people-when-will-authorities-wake-up/
[5] Dr. Sam Bailey on the New Zealand government covid-19 vaccine propaganda machine https://darryllrbetts.wordpress.com/2021/06/26/dr-sam-bailey-on-the-new-zealand-government-covid-19-vaccine-propaganda-machine/
[6] Grievance studies scholarship is driving social change which is harming everyone https://darryllrbetts.wordpress.com/2018/11/23/grievance-studies-scholarship-is-driving-social-change-which-is-harming-everyone/
Please share this article so that others can discover The BFD.
