• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Government arbitration of scientific discussion

flogger said:
The problem with the US view of exceptionalism is that most people aren't exceptional, they are in fact average/ordinary and as your ever shrinking middle class indicates , more and more are being left behind.

This cannot go on forever obviously before there is a societal backlash. Madame le guillottine beckons :(
Click to expand...

I did not use the word "exceptionalism." It belongs in another discussion. As far as the middle class goes, it was the period 1945-1975 that was the anomaly. What is happening now is merely a reversion to historic norms.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Oh yes, that's why the real restriction would be to journalists who want to then present that as we are all doomed!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Finally, an example of who you imagine would be prosecuted under your legislation.

But what about journalists who A) present it as "A widely-acclaimed study by leading international experts in the prestigious journal Science strongly concludes that we may all be doomed"?

B) What about the journalists who publish that we are all doomed, but insist under oath that they mistakenly but genuinely believed that to be the takeaway message?

C) Or who publish that we are all doomed, and when questioned about the assertion (since the paper only said "if" there's a lot of warming), cite a couple of other scientific studies which clearly suggest there will be a lot of 20th century warming/very high ECS value?

D) What about the journalists who have a big bold headline "Climate Science: We Are All Doomed," describing the widely-acclaimed study in paragraph one and explaining in paragraph two that advocacy group 'Climate Science' issued a "We're doomed" statement in light of that study.

None of these could be prosecuted, since they either are not false (A), are not intentionally lying (B and C) or are not saying that the claim is science at all (D). Similar examples could just as easily apply in the case of claims that there'll be strong 21st century cooling, or for that matter claims regarding alien visitation to Earth: There undoubtedly are individuals with degrees in science who assert these things, and even papers in "peer-reviewed" journals (however poorly-regarded or little-known).

You keep referring to libel laws, but those cases involve a court's decision on whether or not the statements are false to begin with. If there were to be any possibility of someone being successfully prosecuted under your notion, you would have courts making rulings about what is or is not scientific truth!

But far more likely than successful prosecutions, the number one effect of your proposed regime would be to lend far more credibility to examples such as the above - after all, they wouldn't publish it/get away with it if the claims weren't true... right?
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
Finally, an example of who you imagine would be prosecuted under your legislation.

But what about journalists who A) present it as "A widely-acclaimed study by leading international experts in the prestigious journal Science strongly concludes that we may all be doomed"?
Click to expand...

Fine. But that would not make a good healine. Thus the wind is taken out of it.

B) What about the journalists who publish that we are all doomed, but insist under oath that they mistakenly but genuinely believed that to be the takeaway message?
Click to expand...

Did he check with the scientist that what he was about to publish was accurate? If not that would be a sure fire high degree of evidence that he knew he was pushing the truth where it should not go to.

C) Or who publish that we are all doomed, and when questioned about the assertion (since the paper only said "if" there's a lot of warming), cite a couple of other scientific studies which clearly suggest there will be a lot of 20th century warming/very high ECS value?
Click to expand...

Is this a journalist making headlines or a scientist making claims backed with evidence? Either way can he support it?

D) What about the journalists who have a big bold headline "Climate Science: We Are All Doomed," describing the widely-acclaimed study in paragraph one and explaining in paragraph two that advocacy group 'Climate Science' issued a "We're doomed" statement in light of that study.
Click to expand...

The court can make a judgement as to the accuracy of the story and the intention to mislead and the intention to make it look like science. Sort of judgement that is made in court all the time. See the present atterney general's claims not to have talked to the Russians.

None of these could be prosecuted, since they either are not false (A), are not intentionally lying (B and C) or are not saying that the claim is science at all (D). Similar examples could just as easily apply in the case of claims that there'll be strong 21st century cooling, or for that matter claims regarding alien visitation to Earth: There undoubtedly are individuals with degrees in science who assert these things, and even papers in "peer-reviewed" journals (however poorly-regarded or little-known).
Click to expand...

That would depend upon the detailed circumstances of the case. Just like all other cases. How do you think perjery is enforced?

You keep referring to libel laws, but those cases involve a court's decision on whether or not the statements are false to begin with. If there were to be any possibility of someone being successfully prosecuted under your notion, you would have courts making rulings about what is or is not scientific truth!
Click to expand...

Nope. Just if the person doing it knew that they were lying and it could be so demonstrated. A very very high bar indeed. So you don't think that anybody on your side would be in the firing line, OK. I do.

But far more likely than successful prosecutions, the number one effect of your proposed regime would be to lend far more credibility to examples such as the above - after all, they wouldn't publish it/get away with it if the claims weren't true... right?
Click to expand...

Superb! The scientists' word has the credibility that they cannot be lying because they would be at risk if they were. Good result. I hoped you would feel that this would help you spread your message. Surely you must believe that your side has all the science to back it and would be greatly helped by such a law.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Fine. But that would not make a good healine. Thus the wind is taken out of it.


Did he check with the scientist that what he was about to publish was accurate? If not that would be a sure fire high degree of evidence that he knew he was pushing the truth where it should not go to.


Is this a journalist making headlines or a scientist making claims backed with evidence? Either way can he support it?


The court can make a judgement as to the accuracy of the story and the intention to mislead and the intention to make it look like science. Sort of judgement that is made in court all the time. See the present atterney general's claims not to have talked to the Russians.
Click to expand...

Sorry, are you wanting to make intention to mislead illegal in addition to intentionally false information? All four of those examples could easily be considered misleading, but only one of them provides false information (for which intention could not be demonstrated). So you're saying that even if all the facts are correct, you still want to fine or imprison people if presentation and word choices could be perceived as 'misleading'?

Where are you going to draw the bar on that, I wonder? Which of the following do you believe should be prosecuted under your proposed laws? In the strictest sense the bare statements are all factually correct, but obviously in at least some of these examples the implications would be controversial at best. Let's say that in all cases they meet your criterion of "being called science" (eg. the claimant in each case is writing a newspaper column "Science of the day" with their degree in a scientific field noted at the top):

A > The columnist (who for the sake of argument happens to belong to an environmentalist group) writes with emphasis that at least 97% of climate scientists acknowledge anthropogenic climate change, and adds a list of the many national and international scientific organizations which describe it as a serious threat or urge prompt political responses.

B > The columnist (who happens to frequent 'white identitarian' sites/groups) writes that intelligence is an heritable trait and points out that national IQ scores are much lower in predominantly black countries than in predominantly white countries.

C > The columnist (who happens to have ties to the fossil fuel industry) writes that climate has varied widely throughout history and earlier, and that temperature increases are known to increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

D > The columnist (who happens to be a Christian) writes that the likelihood of simple inert chemicals evolving into mammals by "random chance" is unfathomably low, and adds that scientists do not "know" how life began.

E > The columnist (with a known history of poor mathematical ability, and who is publicly on the sceptical side regarding mainstream climate science) writes that he has privately estimated a figure for deaths caused by food price fluctuations due to biofuel crops over 100 times higher than published academic estimates he's been repeatedly shown and more than twice as high as the widely-cited and -corroborated global total of all hunger-related deaths, and suggests that in light of that horrific figure government arbitration of scientific discussion would be an appropriate part of the response.

F > The columnist (who is also occasionally a co-author of journal-published climate science papers) writes that among other things global warming will cause thermal expansion of the oceans, correctly notes that an X% increase in oceanic volume would raise sea levels by over 100 meters, and refers readers to the IPCC reports for more specific projections. (Considerably less than 1% pretty sure, though I can't be bothered doing the maths.)​


Which (if any) of these do you believe should be prosecuted under your proposed laws?

And would the answer be different in any of those cases if the identity/affiliations of the columnist were different?
 
Last edited:
E > The columnist (with a known history of poor mathematical ability, and who is publicly on the sceptical side regarding mainstream climate science) writes that he has privately estimated a figure for deaths caused by food price fluctuations due to biofuel crops over 100 times higher than published academic estimates he's been repeatedly shown and more than twice as high as the widely-cited and -corroborated global total of all hunger-related deaths, and suggests that in light of that horrific figure government arbitration of scientific discussion would be an appropriate part of the response.​

I should clarify that a bit: The columnist presents his figure in the headline as if it were fact, only quietly suggesting later in the body that it's his own "very, very conservative estimate," and does not mention the more reliable information showing vastly smaller numbers at all (let's say they were pointed out by letters to the editor on earlier occasions the columnist hinted at the topic).
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
Sorry, are you wanting to make intention to mislead illegal in addition to intentionally false information? All four of those examples could easily be considered misleading, but only one of them provides false information (for which intention could not be demonstrated). So you're saying that even if all the facts are correct, you still want to fine or imprison people if presentation and word choices could be perceived as 'misleading'?
Click to expand...

What???

In law it is easy for the courts to do what they have been doing for all time and see when a case of fraud happens. That is when somebody misleads you.

This philosophical nonesense about there being no real truth might suit you but it makes more plain than ever that you fully understand that your arguments are drivel.
 
Tim the plumber said:

What???

In law it is easy for the courts to do what they have been doing for all time and see when a case of fraud happens. That is when somebody misleads you.

This philosophical nonesense about there being no real truth might suit you but it makes more plain than ever that you fully understand that your arguments are drivel.
Click to expand...

I said nothing even remotely similar to that, but of course lying is hardly a new trick for you.

You stated that you'd want courts making a judgement on "the intention to mislead," in response to an example where all reported details were true. I am asking for clarification on how you would want this to work. If you were at all sincere in your intentions about this proposal, this obviously isn't something to simply take for granted. Even your go-to reference points show that: In the case of libel, knowingly disseminating false information about someone is generally only punishable if it can be shown to be harmful or defamatory, and even lying under oath is only a criminal offense if it can be shown to be materially relevant to the case.

I offered six fairly straightforward examples for you to clarify your views with; two advocating action on climate change, two opposing and two neutral examples. All are presented as science. In all examples the published statements could be considered true - so far as they go and depending on how much context is considered - but all could potentially be considered misleading to greater or lesser extents.

So which of those examples if any do you believe should be punishable by your proposed laws? Why or why not? [2]




Edit: Here are the examples again - in all cases they meet your criterion of "being called science" (eg. the claimant in each case is writing a newspaper column "Science of the day" with their degree in a scientific field noted at the top):

A > The columnist (who for the sake of argument happens to belong to an environmentalist group) writes with emphasis that at least 97% of climate scientists acknowledge anthropogenic climate change, and adds a list of the many national and international scientific organizations which describe it as a serious threat or urge prompt political responses.

B > The columnist (who happens to frequent 'white identitarian' sites/groups) writes that intelligence is an heritable trait and points out that national IQ scores are much lower in predominantly black countries than in predominantly white countries.

C > The columnist (who happens to have ties to the fossil fuel industry) writes that climate has varied widely throughout history and earlier, and that temperature increases are known to increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

D > The columnist (who happens to be a Christian) writes that the likelihood of simple inert chemicals evolving into mammals by "random chance" is unfathomably low, and adds that scientists do not "know" how life began.

E > The columnist (with a known history of poor mathematical ability, and who is publicly on the sceptical side regarding mainstream climate science) writes a headline figure for deaths caused by food price fluctuations due to biofuel crops, suggesting much later in the body that it's his own "very, very conservative estimate" by guessing percentage impacts from much broader numbers. He does not so much as mention that his figure is over 100 times higher than published academic estimates from more precise data that he's been repeatedly shown (say, by letters to the editor on previous occasions he's hinted at the topic) and more than twice as high as the widely-cited and -corroborated global total of all hunger-related deaths. In conclusion of his column he suggests that in light of that horrific figure, government arbitration of scientific discussion would be an appropriate part of the response, hinting at climate change as one area of concern.

F > The columnist (who is also occasionally a co-author of journal-published climate science papers) writes that among other things global warming will cause thermal expansion of the oceans, correctly notes that an X% increase in oceanic volume would raise sea levels by over 100 meters, and refers readers to the IPCC reports for more specific projections. (Considerably less than 1% pretty sure, though I can't be bothered doing the maths.)​
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
Finally, an example of who you imagine would be prosecuted under your legislation.

But what about journalists who A) present it as "A widely-acclaimed study by leading international experts in the prestigious journal Science strongly concludes that we may all be doomed"?
Click to expand...

Should have checked with the scientist that what they were about to say was correct. If they didn't then they were fairly obviously understanding that they were about to lie. Easy.

B) What about the journalists who publish that we are all doomed, but insist under oath that they mistakenly but genuinely believed that to be the takeaway message?
Click to expand...

Same. A level of inteligence is manditory for gas fitters why not journalists?

C) Or who publish that we are all doomed, and when questioned about the assertion (since the paper only said "if" there's a lot of warming), cite a couple of other scientific studies which clearly suggest there will be a lot of 20th century warming/very high ECS value?
Click to expand...

If they can support the position to a degree that takes them out of definately lying they are in the clear. Again easy.

I can't be arsed with such drivel questions.

Fraud is generally a difficult case to prosecute. Fair point. So the same applies here. Only the obviously false would get it. That will do for me.

What the hell are you so affraid of?
 
Tim the plumber said:
Should have checked with the scientist that what they were about to say was correct. If they didn't then they were fairly obviously understanding that they were about to lie. Easy.
Click to expand...

If you're confident you've got the right understanding, it'd be a pure waste of time to hassle them for confirmation; your assumption that not doing so indicates deception is obviously absurd. Journalists working to a deadline don't always get a response in time in any case.

If they can support the position to a degree that takes them out of definately lying they are in the clear. Again easy.

I can't be arsed with such drivel questions.
Click to expand...

Then why did you go back to them for a second time, instead of responding to my last post?

Fraud is generally a difficult case to prosecute. Fair point. So the same applies here. Only the obviously false would get it. That will do for me.

What the hell are you so affraid of?
Click to expand...

Just a few examples off the top of my head?

- Wasting public money and courts' time with prosecutions which might never be successful.
- Wasting public money and courts' time with a law which is unnecessary, even if occasionally successful.
- Boosting the credibility of misleading quasi-scientific propaganda which skirts around your obviously ill-considered legislation, because "they wouldn't publish/get away with it if it wasn't true."
- Stifling academic discussion with your obviously ill-considered legislation.
- Stifling only one viewpoint on any given issue, because of your obviously ill-considered legislation and blatantly partisan intentions.

Trying to get a straight answer out of you about how you imagine this kind of law would work is like pulling teeth, so either you have no idea what the hell you're talking about, or you don't even care... or you're afraid to say how you want it to work. Either way, why should anyone else support your radical ideas if you can't be bothered to explain what you even mean by them?

Third time's a charm, perhaps: Which of these examples if any do you believe should be punishable by your proposed laws? Why or why not?


Here they are again; all being called science, all arguably 'misleading' to much greater or much lesser extents, but all bare statements arguably true (depending on how much context is considered):

A > The columnist (who for the sake of argument happens to belong to an environmentalist group) writes with emphasis that at least 97% of climate scientists acknowledge anthropogenic climate change, and adds a list of the many national and international scientific organizations which describe it as a serious threat or urge prompt political responses.

B > The columnist (who happens to frequent 'white identitarian' sites/groups) writes that intelligence is an heritable trait and points out that national IQ scores are much lower in predominantly black countries than in predominantly white countries.

C > The columnist (who happens to have ties to the fossil fuel industry) writes that climate has varied widely throughout history and earlier, and that temperature increases are known to increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

D > The columnist (who happens to be a Christian) writes that the likelihood of simple inert chemicals evolving into mammals by "random chance" is unfathomably low, and adds that scientists do not "know" how life began.

E > The columnist (with a known history of poor mathematical ability, and who is publicly on the sceptical side regarding mainstream climate science) writes a headline figure for deaths caused by food price fluctuations due to biofuel crops, suggesting much later in the body that it's his own "very, very conservative estimate" by guessing percentage impacts from much broader numbers. He does not so much as mention that his figure is over 100 times higher than published academic estimates from more precise data that he's been repeatedly shown (say, by letters to the editor on previous occasions he's hinted at the topic) and more than twice as high as the widely-cited and -corroborated global total of all hunger-related deaths. In conclusion of his column he suggests that in light of that horrific figure, government arbitration of scientific discussion would be an appropriate part of the response, hinting at climate change as one area of concern.

F > The columnist (who is also occasionally a co-author of journal-published climate science papers) writes that among other things global warming will cause thermal expansion of the oceans, correctly notes that an X% increase in oceanic volume would raise sea levels by over 100 meters, and refers readers to the IPCC reports for more specific projections. (Considerably less than 1% pretty sure, though I can't be bothered doing the maths.)​
 
Last edited:
Dear God, how hard is it to understand that the same thinking and utter drivel objections can be used for fraud cases.

Mithrae said:
If you're confident you've got the right understanding, it'd be a pure waste of time to hassle them for confirmation; your assumption that not doing so indicates deception is obviously absurd. Journalists working to a deadline don't always get a response in time in any case.



Then why did you go back to them for a second time, instead of responding to my last post?
Click to expand...

Because I thought you might have a slight degree of real confusion in only your head. It was a curtesey.



Just a few examples off the top of my head?

- Wasting public money and courts' time with prosecutions which might never be successful.
- Wasting public money and courts' time with a law which is unnecessary, even if occasionally successful.
- Boosting the credibility of misleading quasi-scientific propaganda which skirts around your obviously ill-considered legislation, because "they wouldn't publish/get away with it if it wasn't true."
- Stifling academic discussion with your obviously ill-considered legislation.
- Stifling only one viewpoint on any given issue, because of your obviously ill-considered legislation and blatantly partisan intentions.
Click to expand...

Just like any court case can be a waste of time.

Trying to get a straight answer out of you about how you imagine this kind of law would work is like pulling teeth, so either you have no idea what the hell you're talking about, or you don't even care... or you're afraid to say how you want it to work. Either way, why should anyone else support your radical ideas if you can't be bothered to explain what you even mean by them?

Third time's a charm, perhaps: Which of these examples if any do you believe should be punishable by your proposed laws? Why or why not?


Here they are again; all being called science, all arguably 'misleading' to much greater or much lesser extents, but all bare statements arguably true (depending on how much context is considered):

A > The columnist (who for the sake of argument happens to belong to an environmentalist group) writes with emphasis that at least 97% of climate scientists acknowledge anthropogenic climate change, and adds a list of the many national and international scientific organizations which describe it as a serious threat or urge prompt political responses.
​
Click to expand...


No problem with that. The internation scientific organisations might have a problem if they cannot justify the "serrious threat requiring prompt political responses" though.

B > The columnist (who happens to frequent 'white identitarian' sites/groups) writes that intelligence is an heritable trait and points out that national IQ scores are much lower in predominantly black countries than in predominantly white countries.
Click to expand...

Yeah, what?. He is right.

C > The columnist (who happens to have ties to the fossil fuel industry) writes that climate has varied widely throughout history and earlier, and that temperature increases are known to increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Click to expand...

True. What the hell point are you making here?

D > The columnist (who happens to be a Christian) writes that the likelihood of simple inert chemicals evolving into mammals by "random chance" is unfathomably low, and adds that scientists do not "know" how life began.
Click to expand...

Does he say that science says that it considers the chance of simple chemicals becoing life is so low? If so he is breaking this proposed law. If he keeps his language as you phrase it then he probably avoids it. the court could decied based on the degree of the strength of the claim and the degree to which he has been shown to understand the chemistry that says that life is sort of inevitable. ​
 
E > The columnist (with a known history of poor mathematical ability, and who is publicly on the sceptical side regarding mainstream climate science) writes a headline figure for deaths caused by food price fluctuations due to biofuel crops, suggesting much later in the body that it's his own "very, very conservative estimate" by guessing percentage impacts from much broader numbers. He does not so much as mention that his figure is over 100 times higher than published academic estimates from more precise data that he's been repeatedly shown (say, by letters to the editor on previous occasions he's hinted at the topic) and more than twice as high as the widely-cited and -corroborated global total of all hunger-related deaths. In conclusion of his column he suggests that in light of that horrific figure, government arbitration of scientific discussion would be an appropriate part of the response, hinting at climate change as one area of concern.
Click to expand...

I would love to have the opportunity to have my ideas tested in court. I may well be wrong to the degree of 50%. That's spot on for eco-science. Bring it on!!

F > The columnist (who is also occasionally a co-author of journal-published climate science papers) writes that among other things global warming will cause thermal expansion of the oceans, correctly notes that an X% increase in oceanic volume would raise sea levels by over 100 meters, and refers readers to the IPCC reports for more specific projections. (Considerably less than 1% pretty sure, though I can't be bothered doing the maths.)[/indent]
Click to expand...

Is obviously talking drivel.
 
Tim the plumber said:
No problem with that. The internation scientific organisations might have a problem if they cannot justify the "serrious threat requiring prompt political responses" though.
Click to expand...

Bloody hell - you make a big song and dance and pretend like the details are irrelevant, and in the very first example we see that you want to suspend the presumption of innocence!

In any perjury case, the prosecutor would have to prove that the defendant's statements were false, and intentionally so, and were materially relevant to the case. But by the sounds of it under your proposed law, in the case for example of a position statement signed by the peak national scientific bodies of the USA, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia and South Africa, which was also signed by your Royal Society, all someone would have to do is take the Royal Society to court and it would be up to the scientific organization to "justify" the contents of that statement - with the affirmations of all the other peak scientific bodies apparently not even counting as evidence!

And you really don't see any problem with this proposal?

Yeah, what?. He is right.
Click to expand...

And yet the implication that intelligence is influenced by or inherently correlated with skin pigmentation is demonstrably false, with the variations in national IQ score far more likely a result of dietary, environmental and cultural factors. The implications of the article - that black people tend to be less intelligent - are obviously offensive or even defamatory, and has huge implications in society. Under your law which prohibits falsehood in the name of 'science,' any person so inclined would now be parading that claim around because "If it wasn't true, they couldn't publish/get away with it."

True. What the hell point are you making here?
Click to expand...

You don't think it's misleading to imply that the rapid increases of CO2 over the industrial era are the result of natural temperature increases?

You actively raise the possibility of joint statements by international science academies being prosecuted under your law, but apparently you can't even imagine the possibility of prosecuting fossil fuel industry propaganda implying that even the CO2 increase isn't anthropogenic.
 
Tim the plumber said:
I would love to have the opportunity to have my ideas tested in court. I may well be wrong to the degree of 50%. That's spot on for eco-science. Bring it on!!



Is obviously talking drivel.
Click to expand...

Neither of these is a clear answer: Do you believe that they should be prosecuted/punished under your proposed law, or not?
 
Mithrae said:
Bloody hell - you make a big song and dance and pretend like the details are irrelevant, and in the very first example we see that you want to suspend the presumption of innocence!

In any perjury case, the prosecutor would have to prove that the defendant's statements were false, and intentionally so, and were materially relevant to the case. But by the sounds of it under your proposed law, in the case for example of a position statement signed by the peak national scientific bodies of the USA, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia and South Africa, which was also signed by your Royal Society, all someone would have to do is take the Royal Society to court and it would be up to the scientific organization to "justify" the contents of that statement - with the affirmations of all the other peak scientific bodies apparently not even counting as evidence!

And you really don't see any problem with this proposal?
Click to expand...

No. If you make a scientific claim you should be able to justify it. That is different to proving it. If it can be shown that the claim is clearly wrong then the defendant loses. That is a very high bar to reach for the prosecution.


[Black people being less inteligent]
And yet the implication that intelligence is influenced by or inherently correlated with skin pigmentation is demonstrably false, with the variations in national IQ score far more likely a result of dietary, environmental and cultural factors. The implications of the article - that black people tend to be less intelligent - are obviously offensive or even defamatory, and has huge implications in society. Under your law which prohibits falsehood in the name of 'science,' any person so inclined would now be parading that claim around because "If it wasn't true, they couldn't publish/get away with it."
Click to expand...

Black people score less well than other races on intelligence tests. That these differences are small in comparison with other factors or that the difference between 2 white people is far greater (on average) than the difference between a black average and a white average is not the question.

Just because you don't like a scientific result does not make it worng.



You don't think it's misleading to imply that the rapid increases of CO2 over the industrial era are the result of natural temperature increases?
Click to expand...

Your example did not say that they were.

You actively raise the possibility of joint statements by international science academies being prosecuted under your law, but apparently you can't even imagine the possibility of prosecuting fossil fuel industry propaganda implying that even the CO2 increase isn't anthropogenic.
Click to expand...

Wrong. If the fossil fuel companies said that the release of CO2 by burning fossil fuel does not raise the level of CO2 in the air they would have to justify this and I expect them to fail. The example had a different statement.
 
Mithrae said:
Neither of these is a clear answer: Do you believe that they should be prosecuted/punished under your proposed law, or not?
Click to expand...


Given I have not claimed that my estimate is science then I would not be so exposed. If this law happened I would do more research to find a more accurate estimate, call it science and publish the result with the hope of being taken to court.

When somebody spouts obvious drivel they do not create a persuasive argument. I don't care at that point.
 
Tim the plumber said:
No. If you make a scientific claim you should be able to justify it. That is different to proving it. If it can be shown that the claim is clearly wrong then the defendant loses. That is a very high bar to reach for the prosecution.
Click to expand...

You've still removed the presumption of innocence, haven't you? How do you justify this? Putting the onus on the defendant is contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for crying out loud! "Who would fear this really?" ~ Tim the Plumber :roll:

I'm honestly amazed by this - and it really puts all your song and dance over having to answer a few simple questions in perspective!

Black people score less well than other races on intelligence tests. That these differences are small in comparison with other factors or that the difference between 2 white people is far greater (on average) than the difference between a black average and a white average is not the question.

Just because you don't like a scientific result does not make it worng.
Click to expand...

There is no significant difference in results when environmental, socio-economic and cultural differences are accounted for - certainly none that has been conclusively demonstrated, while numerous studies suggest that those are the factors which account for the differences. Migrant professionals from Africa to western countries have similar scores to western professionals; black Ethiopian children adopted by Israelis achieve results comparable to their peers; poor white 'hillbillies' in the United States score similarly low results to poor black 'ghetto' communities, and so on. There are also some studies in which adopted children score differently from the biological children of their parents. But such an obviously unpleasant and far-reaching suggestion should be held to the highest standards of evidence, not upheld on the basis of a modicrum of ambiguous data with substantial contrary evidence and credible alternative explanations.

Your example did not say that they were.

Wrong. If the fossil fuel companies said that the release of CO2 by burning fossil fuel does not raise the level of CO2 in the air they would have to justify this and I expect them to fail. The example had a different statement.
Click to expand...

It was an example (like the intelligence one, the creationism one and the sea level one) of statements which in isolation are correct, but with obvious implications which are very much incorrect, thoroughly misleading propaganda.

In all four cases you have suggested that you wouldn't see them being prosecuted under your law, so at least you're consistent in that regard. But these examples are quite extreme and misleading creationist, racist, fossil fuel and AGW propaganda, and you're suggesting they'd be unaffected by your law as long as they only present as 'science' some information lined up to make their obvious implications, and save the explicit conclusions for a "fact sheet" which doesn't use the term 'science.'

So (pending your answer regarding violating basic human rights) it really does beg the question what use you imagine your proposal would be? Unless you wanted to make it retroactive, after you've finished rounding up the Flat Earth Society basically no-one else would be susceptible. Propagandists with more than half a brain advocating any cause, no matter how absurd or nefarious, could easily skirt their way around the legislation - and far from reducing deception in the name of 'science' it would (as I've pointed out several times and you have failed to address) simply add a superficial credibility to deceptive propaganda because "they couldn't get away with it."
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
You've still removed the presumption of innocence, haven't you? How do you justify this? Putting the onus on the defendant is contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for crying out loud! "Who would fear this really?" ~ Tim the Plumber :roll:

I'm honestly amazed by this - and it really puts all your song and dance over having to answer a few simple questions in perspective!
Click to expand...

Libel law already does that and this would do it to a far lesser degree.

All that you would need to do is show that your position is reasonable and that the other side cannot show that you are flat out lying. Easy to understand and easy to opperate in law.



There is no significant difference in results when environmental, socio-economic and cultural differences are accounted for - certainly none that has been conclusively demonstrated, while numerous studies suggest that those are the factors which account for the differences. Migrant professionals from Africa to western countries have similar scores to western professionals; black Ethiopian children adopted by Israelis achieve results comparable to their peers; poor white 'hillbillies' in the United States score similarly low results to poor black 'ghetto' communities, and so on. There are also some studies in which adopted children score differently from the biological children of their parents. But such an obviously unpleasant and far-reaching suggestion should be held to the highest standards of evidence, not upheld on the basis of a modicrum of ambiguous data with substantial contrary evidence and credible alternative explanations.
Click to expand...

Well if that's the case then the idea that different races score differently on IQ tests should be got rid of by such a law. Easy and good.



It was an example (like the intelligence one, the creationism one and the sea level one) of statements which in isolation are correct, but with obvious implications which are very much incorrect, thoroughly misleading propaganda.
Click to expand...

And as you have shown it is easy to show why such results are misleading on their own. That it is still a matter of showing the facts but that it would be more difficult to make up bad science.


In all four cases you have suggested that you wouldn't see them being prosecuted under your law, so at least you're consistent in that regard. But these examples are quite extreme and misleading creationist, racist, fossil fuel and AGW propaganda, and you're suggesting they'd be unaffected by your law as long as they only present as 'science' some information lined up to make their obvious implications, and save the explicit conclusions for a "fact sheet" which doesn't use the term 'science.'
Click to expand...

Correct(ish), so not at all draconian then. Good to see you are finally gatting it.

So (pending your answer regarding violating basic human rights) it really does beg the question what use you imagine your proposal would be? Unless you wanted to make it retroactive, after you've finished rounding up the Flat Earth Society basically no-one else would be susceptible. Propagandists with more than half a brain advocating any cause, no matter how absurd or nefarious, could easily skirt their way around the legislation - and far from reducing deception in the name of 'science' it would (as I've pointed out several times and you have failed to address) simply add a superficial credibility to deceptive propaganda because "they couldn't get away with it."
Click to expand...

I think it would stop NASA saying that Greenland is losing ice or that it is possible to have a 300Gt ice mass loss per year from Greenland due to melting.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Libel law already does that and this would do it to a far lesser degree.
Click to expand...

Libel is a different case. Laws vary from place to place, but assuming a plaintiff had to establish a) that the defendant made a claim and b) that the claim was harmful to the plaintiff, presumption of innocence could go either way: Should it be presumed the plaintiff is 'innocent' of those accusations and undeserving of the harm which has been shown to have been inflicted, or should it be presumed that the defendant is innocent of the accusation? Furthermore even if the claim was actually false, often it is not punishable if it could be shown to have been a reasonable belief which the defendant had attempted to ascertain beforehand, which would require the defendant to make their case regardless. And putting the onus on the defendant by no means universal even given these special circumstances of libel cases.

In the case of scientific information there is no ambiguity over presumption of innocence, unless unqualified negative assertions were made about particular individuals/groups - which would be treated as libel anyway.

All that you would need to do is show that your position is reasonable and that the other side cannot show that you are flat out lying. Easy to understand and easy to opperate in law.
Click to expand...

Unless we're talking about a biology teacher trying to convince the jury in a backwater Alabama court that evolution is "reasonable." But that's not even the point: Scientists should not be compelled to waste a single second of their time preparing a defence for frivolous prosecutions under your law - they should be free to sleep through the proceedings if they want, and walk out scott free if their accusers cannot demonstrate fraud or intentional falsehood. (Even assuming your proposal were a good idea in the first place, which it's not.) That is a basic human right as defined by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and you seem intent on violating it in the name of your anti-scientific crusade.

I think it would stop NASA saying that Greenland is losing ice or that it is possible to have a 300Gt ice mass loss per year from Greenland due to melting.
Click to expand...

That's about 20cm off the top, averaged over the surface of the ~2km-deep Greenland ice sheet. Remember that demonstrated poor mathematical ability of yours?

I thought we might be approaching an understanding, but really you're all over the place with what you want your law to accomplish. If you're ruling out even NASA as a credible source of scientific observations, how the hell is any scientist supposed to justify anything now that you've stripped them of their right to presumption of innocence?

And you've said that if IQ is not tied to skin pigmentation you would want your law to get rid of the very idea that different races score differently on IQ tests, even though in some cases that can be a circumstantial fact!

###

And I'm going to put this separately, because you still haven't addressed the fact that your proposal would lend superficial credibility to each and every bit of misleading quasi-scientific propaganda which skirts around the law, no matter how nefarious or absurd the agenda, simply because many people would assume "if it wasn't true they couldn't publish/get away with it."

You pretend that you want to reinforce the 'authority' of science or somesuch, yet from the answers which you have (very reluctantly) provided it seems that if they were implement your proposals could both have a chilling effect on scientific research itself, yet also reinforce misleading propaganda!
 
Last edited:
Tim the plumber said:
Libel law already does that and this would do it to a far lesser degree.

All that you would need to do is show that your position is reasonable and that the other side cannot show that you are flat out lying. Easy to understand and easy to opperate in law.





Well if that's the case then the idea that different races score differently on IQ tests should be got rid of by such a law. Easy and good.





And as you have shown it is easy to show why such results are misleading on their own. That it is still a matter of showing the facts but that it would be more difficult to make up bad science.




Correct(ish), so not at all draconian then. Good to see you are finally gatting it.



I think it would stop NASA saying that Greenland is losing ice or that it is possible to have a 300Gt ice mass loss per year from Greenland due to melting.
Click to expand...

Except.... it is losing ice- at a greater rate than 300 GT per year.
 
Mithrae said:
Scientists [blah blah] and walk out scott free if their accusers cannot demonstrate fraud or intentional falsehood.
Click to expand...

Yep. That's the proposal.

If the accusing side cannot demonstrate that the science is wrong and that the scientist understood that the claims made were wrong then the case fails.

If that catches your side lying, as you seem to be obviously scared of, then you have a very low confidence in your ideas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom