What If We’re Wrong?
I don&#x27;t disagree with the sentiment, but the author trips up a few times.<p>&gt; Orthodoxy is effective at times of stasis, when what is to come looks very much like what came before, and when what we believe to be true is in fact true. Too much orthodoxy, though, and we become stale and stagnant. Heterodoxy injects new ideas into a system, and is necessary any time the world is changing, and the future has little chance of looking like the past. Too much heterodoxy, however, and we become frenzied and chaotic.<p>The world constantly changes. We cannot point to any time and call it a &quot;time of stasis.&quot; The author offers no evidence to support the claims about &quot;too much&quot; orthodoxy or heterodoxy. This looks like a false dichotomy, because almost everything we &quot;believe to be true&quot; will hold true tomorrow, and every once in a while we learn something new and something we thought was true turns out inaccurate or wrong. These two states occur simultaneously, not in opposition to each other.<p>&gt; Many of Galileo’s interlocutors did not know what was true, yet they certainly believed that they did.<p>More accurately, Galileo&#x27;s interlocuters felt <i>certain</i> they knew what was true. Only in hindsight can we say they got it wrong, and then only if we accept science over belief. The frame of reference and source of authority matters when calling something &quot;true&quot; or not. Aristotle and every thinker after him, for about 1,500 years, got it wrong about the heliocentric solar system. That was not a long period of stasis, it was a long period of no better explanation, until a few people figured it out. And it bears pointing out that the heliocentric model got accepted as &quot;true&quot; fairly quickly despite efforts to prevent publishing and teaching.<p>&gt; Those of us who asked [questions about COVID, mRNA vaccines, Ivermectin], throughout 2020 and well into 2021, have been called conspiracy theorists, and worse. Our intentions have been questioned. We have been told to keep quiet. Some have self-censored, and others have been brought to heel by Big Tech.<p>&gt; Shutting down the voices of those who question your conclusions—while not criminal—is antithetical to science.<p>&gt; On Leap Day of 2020, in a tweet that remained up for months but has now been deleted, the US Surgeon General was dismissive of those who thought that masks were a useful tool in preventing the spread of COVID-19, chiding: “Seriously people—STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus.” The US Surgeon General has since reversed course and we know that its line, as of Leap Day 2020, was based on politics rather than science.<p>Official government opinions and guidance are of course &quot;based on politics rather than science.&quot; Part of the reason for discouraging the public wearing masks was to insure a supply of masks for doctors, nurses, caregivers, etc. That doesn&#x27;t make the Surgeon General&#x27;s comment correct or right, but it illustrates ignorance and politics, not censorship or malice.<p>The rest of the article dwells mainly on perceived opinions of other people (getting &quot;glowered at&quot; or mocked), and the role of social media platforms such as YouTube. I wonder why Facebook and YouTube and Twitter play such an oversize role in scientific and public discourse. Do serious scientists and doctors collaborate and publish on social media platforms alongside Justin Bieber and the Kardashians? Can a reasonable person complain about getting ridiculed for heterodox statements about vaccines on platforms that thrive on people ridiculing or &quot;liking&quot; hairstyles and celebrity clothes?<p>Social media platforms are not government censors. They aren&#x27;t the powerful Catholic Church against Galileo. If you don&#x27;t want to get mocked on social media don&#x27;t post there. Google and Facebook are not out shutting down research labs and destroying scientific publications. They are putting their finger in the wind trying to find a path between maintaining an audience (their revenue model) and not pissing off the legislators too much (which might affect their revenue model). To imagine they care about heterodox scientific ideas is to misunderstand their mission, and to turn over power to them.<p>&gt; We need freedom of expression because what we currently believe is true, just or moral may change. We might be wrong. In light of history, to imagine elsewise is the height of hubris.<p>Agree that we should protect freedom of expression. We should not expect to get those freedoms from companies that make money from advertising and selling our personal information while trying to steer clear of government oversight. What we currently believe is true, just or moral <i>will</i> change, and just as certainly the companies currently running social media platforms will die and get replaced.<p>The author might notice the hubris and self-satisfaction of writing &quot;I was right all along,&quot; which will feel even better when the YouTube video or Tweet goes viral.<p>&gt; those who claim certainty on such matters should never have control of who gets to speak, or of what they say when they do.<p>Again the author conflates the power of social media platforms -- who only have power and reach because people give it to them -- with control over speech. Those are not the same thing. Galileo did not have any right to force a publisher to print and distribute his book, and no one today has a right to put whatever they want on YouTube. Fortunately we have more outlets than ever before -- like Areo Magazine -- so talking about social media platforms controlling who gets to speak seems a little silly.