Clifton! You put your finger exactly on the problem. The powers that be decided scientists weren’t “credible” if they didn’t tow the party line, while allowing any half-baked comments of any old schmo as long as it didn’t contradict the party line. What we need is a better way to identify “credible” because it is hard. And someone can be credible on one subject and be talking nonsense on another. Maybe we need something like “peer review” for media, instead of algorithms that prefer engagement to accuracy…. That would be a big change.
Deciding who or what entity has the authority to determine truth v falsehood (and the authority to punish the transgression against official truth) is always - and will always be - *The Issue*. Considering for 30 seconds the possibility that "the other side" will have that authority should be sufficient for clear thinkers to determine the danger of allowing any centralized power such authority. Think of how stifling to creativity- and chilling to any productive dissent. I'm often shocked by how complacent John is in the face of facts revealed by Shellenberger, to name just one person. Power seeks to consolidate power. That's never good in any republic which claims to offer freedom from the tyranny of mobs OR minorities.
Clifton! You put your finger exactly on the problem. The powers that be decided scientists weren’t “credible” if they didn’t tow the party line, while allowing any half-baked comments of any old schmo as long as it didn’t contradict the party line. What we need is a better way to identify “credible” because it is hard. And someone can be credible on one subject and be talking nonsense on another. Maybe we need something like “peer review” for media, instead of algorithms that prefer engagement to accuracy…. That would be a big change.
Deciding who or what entity has the authority to determine truth v falsehood (and the authority to punish the transgression against official truth) is always - and will always be - *The Issue*. Considering for 30 seconds the possibility that "the other side" will have that authority should be sufficient for clear thinkers to determine the danger of allowing any centralized power such authority. Think of how stifling to creativity- and chilling to any productive dissent. I'm often shocked by how complacent John is in the face of facts revealed by Shellenberger, to name just one person. Power seeks to consolidate power. That's never good in any republic which claims to offer freedom from the tyranny of mobs OR minorities.