Present day society is on the cusp of the first global civilization this planet has ever seen. One of the barriers preventing us from reaching this is that we have yet to reach a genuine consensus regarding how we assess the merit of ideas. One method, and one I happen to think is the right method, is to make our judgments based on evidence and repeatable demonstrations. This is probably the only means we have of obtaining objective statements about reality that do not depend on the person making the observation. Central to this are two concepts; the notion that burden of proof lies with the proponent and, when evidence is presented, that it be critically analyzed. The scientific method has these very ideas at its core and has been remarkably successful in expanding our knowledge of the universe and our mastery of technology. Does it not make sense to approach public policy and ideology in a similar manner?
One must provide evidence for their claims. Given the explosion of human knowledge in the past two centuries, this appears to be the only plausible way to conduct ourselves. Just think about how far back modern medicine would be set if every time some wingnut claimed tonic water cures cancer, doctors and researchers had to expend their time and resources refuting it rather than following promising research leads. On the other hand, if someone can provide compelling evidence for their claims then researchers are obligated to closely examine it. It must be vetted by people in a position to do so. With this in mind, it seems obvious to me that any theory or belief structure hoping to influence public policy should be subjected to intense scrutiny. After all, such policy has the potential to impact the happiness of thousands of people. In many ways, modern society is failing to embrace this – we don’t scrutinize things before they are trumpeted as the source sound policy or law. The Christian right and their political power is a clear example of this.
Religion seems to hold a position that is immune from criticism. We are told to respect faith. That it’s a remarkable thing for someone in modern times to have faith. Its also bullshit. Once groups like the Christian right lobby to ban things like abortion and stem cell research, or condemn homosexuality, based on their beliefs they open the door for healthy scrutiny. If we are to follow the teachings of their religious books we are allowed to question the validity of those books. One is allowed to question if its historically accurate or if there is any evidence that it was actually written by this god fellow they go on about. And, we should do so in the same manner that we would critique any proposal made by any other person. In the context of the religious texts, this means that science and modern history should be brought to bare and this should be done in the public arena by experts. This also means that the books such as the bible must be validated by sources other than the book itself. Jesus’ existence must be corroborated against historical contemporary writings of the time and the logistics of Noah’s ark should be worked out. You cannot base your entire argument for the validity of a book by only looking at passages taken from that book. If you disagree, then I have proof of the existence of Dracula which holds to the same level of rigor. I mean it. I have Stoker’s book on my shelf.
In a society built on evidentiary facts free speech becomes paramount. One must be able to express or critique ideas. Censorship of ideas or criticism bypasses the entire process and is therefore intolerable. Yet such acts seem to be occurring all the frequently. If you spend any amount of time following the creation vs evolution discussion on youTube you will find countless instances of false DMCA claims filed by a group called the Creation Science Evangelists (CSE). They claim their critics have violated copywrite by using CSE video clips; video clips that that the CSA has stated to be in the public domain. In the event of a DMCA claim, youTube, who are only protecting themselves, will automatically remove or suspend a video or user pending an investigation. This has provided the CSE with an effective way to silence critics. This is unacceptable in modern society where we should value honest and rational debate. They have been allowed to put forward their theory. The experts have reviewed it and rejected it. They should not be able to silence these objections. If you agree, and have a youTube account, I encourage you to write the staff and make your voice heard. Tell them that you value open debate and mechanisms must be put in place to protect against this blatant form of censorship.
I agree wrt critiquing ideas. Just the other day I was having a debate with a Catholic at work who insisted it was entirely reasonable for him to consider the Bible to be proof of itself. This is a guy in IT who is otherwise very smart. I just don’t get it. I think maybe if the extant religious memes get their hooks in a brain early enough and for long enough, they grow entirely resistant to the logical standards the same brain would insist upon in any other field of inquiry. Can’t teach an old dog new tricks.
As far as YouTube goes, this is yet another case of unethical and exploitative behavior from people who believe unjustifiable things about the world. There’s a general closed-mindedness, even a lack of empathy, that permeates everything they do and think.
Youtube has no authority or ability to change the law. The notice-and-takedown system established under the DMCA has made it possible for free speech to be silenced in this way. Simply voicing your concern to Youtube has limited effect because it in no way increases their ability or resources to address your concern. As such, I have three suggestions for alternative uses of your time and resources that may see a greater result:
1. Get involved with EFF. See here for more details on the work they’re doing on this topic.
2. Mobilize around those being silenced. They can fight back against these bogus DMCA claims. EFF might even help them do it.
3. Become politically active: write your government representative (you can find him/her here.), find out about events organized around this controversial issue, or organize your own events and make your feelings/opinions/frustration known to those with the ability to change the situation and the law.
The jist: Simply pressuring those who are already being vocal about this issue does not increase the effectiveness of the complaint. Find a way to add your voice instead.
Yeah, you are right Tiff. Those would be better courses of action and I will be sending those links to some of the parties involved in all of this.