Don’t ask the idiots about science

Skepticism

One always does prefer an honest debate where both (or more) sides are well represented and argued. However, of course, sometimes there aren’t two sides to an issue, especially when it comes to scientific matters (such as Evolution vs. Creationism, “alternative medicine” vs. actual science-based medicine, etc.). I’ve already posted the great (though slightly over-the-top) SMBC Theater parody video on the issue of “presenting both sides”, and now, it’s time for Cracked to take a shot at it, in an article about 5 Things The Media Loves Pretending Are News. And, guess what their #5 is …?

Let's Ask the Idiots About Science

When it comes to matters of opinion or personal beliefs, it is absolutely the duty of the news media to report both sides (and any extra sides there may be, on those rare odd occasions when there are somehow more than two). It doesn't matter which one they agree with, they need to acknowledge the fact that some people think gay marriage is a right and others think the gays are forming a unicorn army that will kill us all.

When it comes to matters of fact, however, they absolutely do not have that duty. Particularly when it comes to technical or scientific matters where it takes somebody with training to speak knowledgably on the subject.

If we're talking about if, say, vaccines cause autism, we need to hear from scientists. That's a scientific issue. We do not need to hear from Jenny McCarthy or Jim fucking Carrey, in the name of giving "both sides." Jim and Jenny don't get a side. They have no background in the subject, and it's one that requires fucking background.

Sure, they can talk about poisonous vaccines to Oprah or whoever is sitting next to them at the Lakers game all they want. They have freedom of speech. That freedom does not guarantee them a seat on a panel of experts.

Yet, this kind of stupidity happens constantly. You get articles like this one from the Toronto Star, explaining how an investigation revealed how World Trade Center building 7 collapsed:

Scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology say their three-year investigation of the collapse determined the demise of WTC 7 was the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a modern skyscraper.

The organization they mentioned, the NIST, studies how buildings collapse so that they can make sure future buildings don't collapse. But instead of going into further detail on their extensive investigation, we get this:

Mike Berger of the group 9/11 Truth said he wasn't buying the government's explanation. "Their explanation simply isn't sufficient. We're being lied to," he said. Ah, yes, the conspiracy nut. Again, we would never deny a crazy person the right to be crazy.

They just shouldn't get a voice equal to that of hundreds of highly-trained experts. It can't be done that way. After all, there is a contingent of conspiracy kooks drifting around every subject. You don't stop every story about AIDS in Africa to hear from the John Bircher who thinks AIDS is a secret government population control project spread by fluoridated water.

But we can't just disregard their opinions, can we? Yes. Yes we can. If you're going to weigh in on a scientific matter, you need to bring data, gathered by people who know what the fuck they're talking about. If the subject is medicinal marijuana, we're not going to quote a stoner who has suddenly realized his hands can talk.

Perfectly said. Ignorant buffoons, loons, cranks, kooks and quacks can certainly spout off whatever nonsense and even plain lies as they wish, and no-one can (or should) stop them. Free speech applies to all equally. However, that does not give them an equal podium to stand upon when it comes to issues where there simply aren’t two sides. The earth IS round, the sky IS blue, evolution IS a fact, Global Warming IS occurring, vaccines do NOT cause autism, 9/11 WAS brought executed by Al-Qaeda … and etc.

As I’ve said before and always will repeat: critical thought is a must and one must be skeptical about everything. But, there comes a point where the evidence is so clear, overwhelming and incontrovertible, that to claim otherwise simply indicates that either you know nothing of what you’re talking about, or you’re no more than a crank. End of story.

(via Respectful Insolence)