Science frequently discovers things that we then consider true. The Earth revolves around the sun, for example. This is a fact. It is true. If the CBC does a story about our solar system, they do not call up flat-earthers for their view.

Another example is vaccines; science says there is no link between autism and vaccines, but many worried parents firmly believe there is. The CBC sticks with the science-backed position. They would not allow Rex Murphy to preach not “Don’t vaccinate your children,” because that would be irresponsible and dangerous.

I am asking that they do the same with climate change. The science is quite clear, and giving a denier a platform is dangerous and irresponsible.

The idea that there are multiple sides to anything is not necessarily correct for science. If your doctor and hundreds of specialists tell you that you have cancer…that’s an unfortunate truth. You really don’t need some quack telling you cancer is a scam by the doctors to make money, and you don’t need their treatments.

However “the truth” is not something that a news organization should be trying to make judgments on (science doesn’t judge in its search for truths). When news makes judgments on what side of a story to show to the exclusion of all others you get things like fox news who put forth the truth as they see it even though most rational people can see they are horribly biased.

At least the CBC tries to do the honest thing and shows all sides even if they may not agree with them. Are you seriously arguing against journalistic fairness? That seems to be what the author of the story wants to do.

I’m not arguing (and never have) that I agree with the original story on the CBC that caused all this… I am arguing that they should continue to show all sides as fairly as possible and not be the arbiters of “truth”. Even when (especially when) we don’t like what the other side is saying.

But let’s get back to science. Do you reject the link between smoking cigarettes and cancer that scientists have found? How about your car – it was designed by an engineer who you better hope held certain things to be true, like the tensile strength of steel. Or do you only disagree with inconvenient truths?

If you think truth is absolute and that there is no question about what is true then you are missing the point. Heck the fact that we can even argue about the meaning of “truth” points to the fact that it is not the same from every perspective.

Just look at the wikipedia article on truth and you will see there are several accepted theories out there about how to define truth. If you have the key to total understanding on this issue you should write up a paper and collect your nobel prize now.

This post was mentioned on Reddit by NoMoreNicksLeft: Sounds like an argument over semantics. How does this relate to /r/collapse?…