In 1950, Immanuel Velikovsky, a psychoanalyst, published a crackpot hypothesis to the effect that in 1500 BC the planet Venus zipped around the solar system causing various events recorded in the Bible. His ideas caught on and began to mislead a gullible public, leading to some scientists suggesting Velikovsky should be silenced.
Astronomer Carl Sagan, however, advocated that Velikovsky be allowed to debate his ideas, and naturally in the course of the debate Sagan exposed them as insupportable.
It is unlikely that Sagan shifted Velikovsky’s views, but the general public were exposed to the full spectrum of the debate and Velikovsky’s ideas dropped into the realm of pseudoscience and faded away – because they were debated and not silenced.
Sagan’s lesson was simple: the best response to a bad idea is a good idea. Sadly, it would seem it is one we have yet to learn.
The Australian Federal government is currently considering – with the surprising support of the Australian Human Rights Commission – legislating itself the power to silence people in the name of preventing the spreading of misinformation and disinformation in relation to climate change and energy.
Those issues have become somewhat vexed and the subject of much ill-informed public discourse – but is the answer the silencing of dissenting voices?
People hold passionate views on these issues; declaring them to be misinformation/disinformation and thus banned seems Orwellian – especially as science has always been powered by dissent.
“Whether or not we can convince climate-change deniers through debate is yet to be seen, but lawyers at least should never silence the debate itself.
At the outset, it should be noted that the only explanation for the climate data we have collected is that the Earth is warming and that human activities are contributing significantly to that process. The science is as settled as science ever really gets – but no scientist would claim that we know everything about what is going on. Science improves by constantly challenging its assumptions and conclusions – remove that ability and science becomes faith.
No serious scientist expects to find anything that contradicts anthropogenic global warming, but there may be other factors that are part of the problem and successfully addressing climate change means discovering them all.
Scientists know they have to keep contradicting and experimenting – because the majority has been wrong before.
In 1965 geochemist Clair Patterson published Contaminated and Natural Lead Environments of Man, a scientific paper warning of the dangers of increasing levels of lead throughout the Earth’s environment, including the food chain. He advocated for the removal of lead from petrol to protect the health of the population.
Patterson was opposed by almost every expert in the field, and subject to exclusion from contracts and excluded from the panel set up to investigate the issue. His stance was in direct contrast to the scientific consensus of the time and would initially have met any meaningful definition of misinformation/disinformation.
Patterson was, however, right – and as he had the right to continue to advocate for his unpopular position, he was able to persuade his critics, get lead removed from all standard petrol, and save countless people from illness and early death. Had he been unable to speak out, the outcome would have been disastrous for the entire human population.
Silencing those with whom we disagree – especially on an issue such as climate change – can seem like the right thing to do, but censorship is rarely, if ever, the answer. In addition, once a government gives itself a power like this, it is inevitable that other issues will be added, depending on the attitude of the government at any given time. Can we risk that?
Freedom of speech is a non-negotiable, and the best answer to a bad idea is a good one; illumination is the antidote to ignorance.
Whether or not we can convince climate-change deniers through debate is yet to be seen, but lawyers at least should never silence the debate itself.
Perspectives aim to promote informed discussion about current legal issues, ideas and challenges facing the legal profession. Members are welcome to contribute their own Perspectives, as well as to discuss and comment on the pieces published, subject to the comment policies.
Share this article