The myth of ‘The Science’: Why free speech outweighs false certainty
December 24, 2024
The Science is not, in fact, The Science.
This is why that insistence that there be no misinformation or disinformation on social media is so damaging. It’s also why the Founding Fathers insisted on the First Amendment. No one has a monopoly upon the truth. Therefore, no one can have a monopoly on what people are allowed to say.
We have an excellent example here these past few weeks. Apparently, using black plastic spatulas to cook with is damaging to health. Except this claim was made by those who cannot count.
Well, OK, but why was anyone paying attention to the claim? Because this was peer-reviewed science. Published in a proper scientific journal. You know, The Science™. And they still couldn’t count.
From Ars Technica:
That study claimed to find a “high exposure potential” of toxic flame retardants in plastic household items, particularly kitchen utensils, that are made from recycled electronics. The findings sparked a firestorm of media coverage imploring people to immediately throw away any black plastic utensils in their kitchens.
The problem? As even the current generation of AIs could spot, the math didn’t add up. They ended up being out by a factor of ten – that’s times ten. What they said was a dangerous level was, in fact, well below the level that anyone thinks could possibly be a problem.
This result was so bad that the “scientific” journal that published it is, to a great extent, not considered to be a scientific journal anymore.
The background here is that the plastics used to make electronics contain fire retardants. When those – often black – plastics are recycled, they can be used to make cooking utensils. Checking whether the retardants end up in the utensils is sensible. But if that investigation is in the hands of those against the very idea of plastics – or of retardants – then the results might end up a little biased. You know, could happen.
To the extent that The Atlantic runs an article insisting that everyone throw out their spatulas.
- Except, you know, the study’s wrong.
But here’s the important point. Science is not, in fact, The Science. Therefore it is impossible for anyone to insist that only scientific truths may be said. But there are many out there insisting that misinformation or disinformation must be banned. We’ve been against this because any such system that identified the one truth that could be said would end up hostage to those who would control what can be said.
Think on it. If we could not question the science, then that tweet – which ran that published, peer-reviewed paper through an AI – could not have existed. That tweet proved that the scientific, peer-reviewed paper was wrong.
Yes, it’s entirely true that free speech ends up with an awful lot of strange things being said. Even some that are untrue. But then so does an insistence upon the truth of The Science end up with untrue things being said.
The advantage of free speech is that we can say so.