Double standard

Freedom of speech has led to the spread of misinformation regarding the efficacy, and risks, related to the practise of medicine. Anti-science nonsense is currently being advocated by celebrities. Oddly enough, opposing this culture of using uninformed non-experts as guiding light has proven legally damaging to those who try. So, this means that those claiming all sorts of "alternative" views can have their say: freedom of speech in optima forma. Yet, the moment you point out the numerous logical fallacies and scientific inaccuracies you will probably be forced by a court of law to retract, or the threat of being sued for libel will stop the accurately informed of making such corrections. In the words of Orac this is suppression of speech.

The adagium you have the right to your opinion, as long as it adheres to mine comes to mind.

Update: Just adding Steven Novella discussing the lawsuits against Paul Offit and Simon Singh.

Update II: In case you are looking for some rationality promoting spirits The Gotham Skeptics has a nice list you can start with.

Update III: Another mention of this silly game can be found at Weird Things.

Update IV: Responding The Gotham Skeptic hopes these legal games

will shine some light on the desperate and empty scare tactics of the anti-vaccine lobby, and in so doing bring the long-overdue attention and respect that real scientific[sic] deserves.

According to Science-Based Medicine the fact that the “infectious disease promotion movement” resorts to legal instead of scientific discourse indicates

a fundamental misunderstanding of both science and law. Science requires conflict, and the law does not protect us from the consequences of our ideas or the negative opinions of others. A free society cannot thrive on suppression of conflict, and science cannot progress without an atmosphere that allows vigorous, sometimes painful, debate.

It suggests that the anti-science movement is out of breath, and knows they are losing on the merits of this "debate." As if we do not already know Orac copiously writes about the consequences of misleading the general public into not vaccinating. He agrees with Barbara Loe Fisher's calls for a "fearless debate" on this topic. 

We do need a fearless conversation about vaccines. It needs to be a conversation free of the fear of the anti-vaccine movement filing lawsuits against its critics, free of the fear of harassment by the anti-vaccine movement, and with scientists being free of the fear that their work will be hijacked and misrepresented as supporting the pseudoscience of the anti-vaccine movement.

Clearly, his interpretation of "fearless debate" is contrary to hers, which is evidenced by the aforementioned lawsuit. Elaborating on Orac's posts Skeptico discovered  it is "only January 7th and we already have our first nomination for a 2010 Golden Woo." (Golden Woos 2009)

They Live

This weekend I was watching that old classic of the conspiracy theorists They Live. The quality is open to debate, for which I refer you to Roger Ebert or Rotten Tomatoes. Having an overly active imagination I see the film as a metaphore for what should be our main goal in life: get educated and stop being a mouton (act like sheep). As such I am inclined to think those paranoid themes are not entirely incorrect. Or to cite the sage: the fact you are paranoid does not mean they are not after you.

It is reminiscent of Brave New World, which details an equally constructed and manipulated society, where the protagonist John the Savage discovers his world is not as it seems. H.G. Wells warned us about such a world divided in haves and have nots. He also showed they are interdependent.

To me this film captures the basic premise behind denying scientific research in most current debates (Big Pharma, Evolution, Global warming, War on Terror): accept as article of faith what we say when we contradict most, if not all, of the experts involved, and never question what you are being told. The principal argument the anti-science movement has is keeping the facts from us. Or, at least, distorting them under the guise of being "Fair and Balanced." The Film Vituperatum nicely illustrates this point, regarding the hyped threat that supposedly will end the world if we do not spend more on the military, with this picture.

The actual chance of terrorism killing you compared to more commonplace, yet conspicuously ignored, things I outlined before. This War of Terror, instigated by the Politico-Media Complex, obscenely benefits the mythical Military-Industrial Complex, which in turn guarantees us that giving them even more money and privileges (read: abolishing civil liberties) will prevent the end of days.

In short, we can think of those pointing out the many incestuous relationships between the haves as cranks, or we can adopt a slightly sceptical view allowing for the existence of contemporary Cassandras.

Tolkien was right that the "hearts of men are easily mislead." To my surprise, and disappointment, we still fall for the "panem et circenses"-routine.