Philosophy Professor Wants To Criminalize Scientific Dissent

In 2012, in a proceeding
straight out of the Inquisition, an
Italian court convicted six scientists for providing “inexact,
incomplete and contradictory information” in the lead-up to the
earthquake. Now, a philosophy professor says that case may provide
a worthwhile example for the treatment of scientific
dissenters—specifically, “climate deniers who receive funding as
part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s
understanding of scientific consensus.”

Writing for The Conversation, a publication geared to
academics, Lawrence
Torcello (pictured at right), a professor of philosophy at the
Rochester Institute of Technology, says the
time for conversation is over.

The importance of clearly communicating science to the public
should not be underestimated. Accurately understanding our natural
environment and sharing that information can be a matter of life or
death. When it comes to global warming, much of the public remains
in denial about a set of facts that the majority of scientists
clearly agree on. With such high stakes, an organised campaign
funding misinformation ought to be considered criminally
negligent.

Torcello then tries to parse the details of the earthquake case,
saying, it was “actually about the failure of scientists to clearly
communicate risks to the public.”

Even so, Torcello acknowledges the chilling effect of
prosecuting scientists for not framing their public statements in a
sufficiently prosecutor-friendly matter. Researchers might not try
to warn anybody if they could face fines or prison time for being
inexact, incomplete, or contradictory after the fact. He ultimately
allows that he wouldn’t actually criminalize poor scientific
communication—just anybody who might support dissenting scientists,
or receive such support.

If those with a financial or political interest in inaction had
funded an organised campaign to discredit the consensus findings of
seismology, and for that reason no preparations were made, then
many of us would agree that the financiers of the denialist
campaign were criminally responsible for the consequences of that
campaign. I submit that this is just what is happening with the
current, well documented funding of global warming
denialism….

We have good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to
be criminally and morally negligent. The charge of criminal and
moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate
deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to
undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.

If you’re trying to figure out how that doesn’t threaten the
free exercise of speech, Torcello assures us, “We must make the
critical distinction between the protected voicing of one’s
unpopular beliefs, and the funding of a strategically organised
campaign to undermine the public’s ability to develop and voice
informed opinions.”

So…You can voice a dissenting opinion, so
long as you don’t benefit from it or help dissenters benefit in any
way?

By the way, according to
RIT, Torcello researches “the moral implications of global
warming denialism, as well as other forms of science denialism.”
Presumably, his job is a paid one. But this is OK, because…the
majority of scientists clearly agree that he’s right?

Let’s allow that they do—and that a majority of scientists agree
about man-made climate change and a host of other issues. Just when
does the Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition meet to
decide what is still subject to debate, and what is now holy writ?
And is an effort to “undermine the public’s understanding of
scientific consensus” always criminally negligent? Can it ever be
simple scientific inquiry? Or even heroic?

Or maybe we just assume underhanded motives on the part of
scientific outliers and their supporters once the committee has
ruled.

(H/T: Slammer)