Watercolor painting by E. Rosalie.
Originally published by Code Like A Girl
If so, I hope you read this. I hope you thoughtfully consider everything. We should hear all arguments, but not all ideas deserve equal weight. Ideas must receive the weight that the strength of the evidence commands.
You are under no obligation to entertain my claim that I have magical powers. Please don’t. If I do that, please get me help. Pretending that platforms are obligated to allow me to claim this is a misapplication of justice.
In the past, ideas were suppressed, not because they lacked merit, but because they threatened people (think the dark ages). Now, we weigh new ideas on their merit.
The video never presented a single shred of evidence. It seems dishonest to say that people are looking for the truth.
Google searches do not constitute research, though they can educate us on the subject and make things more accessible. I question their sincerity when that is the depth of people’s research.
The journalist never challenged a single claim from the protagonist. Real scientists face critical commentary from peers who will tear it to shreds before it sees the light of day. Then, the recipient takes the advice and improves. This continues until there are no more concerns.
Even then, the research may be ignored. Not because it’s a conspiracy but because scientists know that revolutionary finds are rare, while errors are not. That’s why assessing all relevant studies — a meta-analysis — can help prevent any one study from shaping how we perceive an issue.
If we knowingly tell people something untrue, we have likely done harm. We may give false hope and waste others’ time and money. At worst, the error may take lives. That is why a scientist checks and double-checks. If they get it wrong, people may never believe them again.
A crisis may mean having to offer a best guess. We have to be honest about what we know. The void left by the unknown leaves people hungry for answers. People feel scared and vulnerable. Some will prey upon this and say what people want to hear.
Be cautious if people cannot show how they know what they say, especially if the most advanced scholars or professionals have condemned it. Ask why they would avoid scrutiny. The truth can take it. If they deflect criticism or change subjects, be wary.
The best scientists welcome criticism from those most able to give it. If I ask a lawyer or my mail carrier if my research is good, and they say it is, that’s not proof. How would they know?
Aside from that, much of this tale employs magical thinking and suspends reality. Many ethical people would not stay silent about this — me among them.