While certainly pertaining to climate change and online conversations about the topic, this post is really more about free speech, and how critical thinking and scientific, rational, and skeptical discussion cannot exist without it.
I listen to a lot of podcasts throughout the course of my week; at work, the gym, doing chores, running errands, shopping, etc. I just posted and boasted about donating to my favorite, Big Picture Science (BPS). I'm also a fan of The Skeptics Guide to the Universe (SGU). Both are pretty popular and successful shows, but within the skeptical/rational/atheist community, SGU might edge out BPS, whereas BPS maybe has greater appeal among a more generally science-minded audience. I should point out that there is not a drastic difference between fanbases, however, which is probably best exemplified by the fact that Seth Shostak from BPS has appeared on SGU, and Steven Novella from SGU has been interviewed on BPS.
OK, those somewhat trivial hairs now plucked/split, onto the point of all this...
If you listened to this week's episode, you learned that SGU Productions is being sued. Apparently, Dr. Steven Novella was very critical of another medical practitioner, Dr. Edward Tobinick, who uses a rheumatoid arthritis drug for several things it's not intended to treat, such as Alzheimer’s disease. I won't get into the gory details of Dr. Novella's criticism in this post, because I'm not a doctor, and I don't play one on the Interchutes either. Also, I'm more interested in why Dr. Novella has a right to be critical (even harshly so) without fear of being sued, rather than whether or not his analysis has legs. But you can read all about it here, if you would like to learn more.
As Dr. Novella points out in that link, Dr. Tobinick's motivation is silencing opposition, pure and simple. That's the real reason he initiated an absurd case that will hopefully get thrown out of court sooner rather than later. If there's any sanity left in the world, that is. Tobinick was hoping Novella would buckle under the pressure, and take down the scathing opinion-piece, rather than pay legal fees to defend itself, and it's sad that our justice system entertains such slimy intimidation.
Look, people, the point I want to make regarding this and similar lawsuits that target free speech is we need to preserve our ability to verbally dissect one another at all costs. It is crucial to getting at the truth. It is crucial to logic, reason, and science, and it is a vital part of our open public discourse. If you care at all about honest debate, then you will never do what Tobinick has done. Just because lawyers like to get paid does not mean we need to provide them a new boat or vehicle every time someone confronts or questions us. We all need to sign a pact in blood or something that we will never do such things to each other, even our archenemies. Novella is either right or wrong about whether or not Tobinick is engaging in some form of malpractice, and we cannot get to the bottom of it all, if we are all too scared to weigh in on the matter, because it will cost us tens of thousands of dollars for attorneys. It is of no consequence that we are not nice when we criticize each other's words and actions. We need the freedom to be as cold and calculating with one another as possible, because our fragile egos and self-interests are less important than the dangers posed by deception and charlatanry.
Wait a second...do the rest of you hear that growing rumble off in the distance? It's the sound of deniers rushing in and stumbling over one another to be the first to complain about Mann's libel case. Now, I am essentially a free speech absolutist, so I do take some exception to Mann's suit. However, if you deniers do not see a clear difference between what Dr. Novella is doing, and what the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute were in reality attempting, well, I'm here to slap the dope outta ya and clear things up. You're welcome in advance.
No comments:
Post a Comment