How do you determine that the offensive material you publish is “the truth”? Aren’t you really saying “What if our material is offensive? Publish it anyway, regardless of whether it’s true or not.” I’d hope your journal allows for ensuing debate, but do yiu have any criteria for filtering out which “controversial” articles are initially published?
I think the whole point is that the only way "truth" can be arrived at, if at all, is by open debate. This is how the scientific method is supposed to work. I presume the editors of the journal choose to publish what would be constructive debate.
As an autodidact historian , physiologist, and UFologist, I read research from several authors of the same subject, from books and Internet, and thus create a consensus in addition to using common sense of the information or the historical event.
For instance, after years of study, I've concluded extraterrestrial aliens are fabricated, that UFO's are all products of Pentagon Black Projects USAP program, and that Nikola Tesla and the Germans were the first to create anti-gravity technology. Why are UFOs non-confrontational? Because they're ours! Made in the USA. But all suppressed. Thus, common sense dictates the technology is suppressed to protect the national and international petroleum industry from economic calamity.
Dittos for Germany beginning in 1914. They did not start WWI and thus did not deserve the punitive Versailles Treaty. International Jewry declared economic and holly war against Germany in March 1933, and Britain declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939. So who started WW2, The Jews? The Brits? Or perhaps was it British/Jewish jealousy over Germany's anti-Cabal Economic Miracle of 1933 to 1939 that caused Britain and the Cabal to decry Hitler and Schacht's success during a time of world-wide economic Depression?
What's the most profitable business in the world? Of course, WAR, of which the Cabal, the controllers of world finance, loves! (Perhaps no more since Trump as perhaps defanged them)
The latter information is not found in popular media. In fact, it's suppressed. But why not tell the truth? Because the winners are "always right" because during war, their atrocities might be even worse than the losers. In post WW2 France, Eisenhower murdered 1.2 million German POWs. Suppressed. Both Churchill, FDR and Eisenhower violated the Geneva Convention with millions of homicides against civilians by aerial firebombing...Suppressed (except Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
Even FDR said that "anything involving politics, you can bet it's planned?"
Hence, to get to the truth, one has to dig, and dig, and dig and eventually you arrive at the truth.
Dittos for the Bible. Took me three years of study to realize the Truth.
The Duke of Wellington said "Publish and be damned!" but I think there was a side chick involved. Anyway, in more courageous times that was a popular saying in Fleet Street.
If publication does nothing but embarrass the person(s) involved, it's just gossip-fodder. Knowing about it titillates a certain kind of person and that's it! Others wish they never knew.
A major societal force that skews many of the topics reasonably considered here is that social media (and even conventional media to some extent) can distribute ideas at the speed of light (A rumor makes it half way around the world before the truth even gets its boots on- Mark Twain, I think).
If the truth, or the various takes on The Truth that taken all together compose The Truth, could be represented in the discussion of ideas as strongly as various falsehoods, half-truths, and outright lies the field might be a bit more level. But with a social emphasis on clicks, viewers, likes, shares, and eyeballs there is a profound pressure to "publish" and "distribute" attractive garbage.
That is how I would explain the desire to limit discussion. It is an attempt to limit the rapid spread of garbage.
April 2013, I discovered the World's largest impact crater. Using Google Earth as a magnifying glass, I have a plethora of visual evidence for how the Earth was formed. I have tried to publish my findings in a number of scientific journals, but, as my discoveries proves that Geophysics is a Fraud, no-one has the acumen to challenge.
Thanks to the Internet, the truth can be verified. Additionally, false or mendacious assertions and information can be disputed by consensus of the research articles.
For instance when the FDA stated that Ivermectin was toxic and could not eliminate Covid symptoms, the consensus was that the FDA was lying, and that Ivermectin was actually a harmless and inexpensive remedy after we learned from Internet research that it prevented damaging spike protein from entering cells.
Randy, you're correct in that a true searcher of truth may be able to get to the truth via the Internet. Unfortunately, with the gradual advancement of AI, truth is becoming incredibly difficult to get to. I'm with many other people, thinking that the Internet will explode and a return to the library will be our future. It's too difficult and more importantly, too expensive to perpetuate a lie via books. As an aside, it certainly doesn't help when you have a POTUS and a VPOTUS who are part of the problem of spreading lies, cloaked as truths via the Internet. Or worse yet, admitteding to the lies, and justifying their usage in the "greater good" clothing.
The comparison of a gay person with a white person who identifies as black is invalid, since a homosexuality is hard-wired before birth, whereas race is not hard-wired, but acquired. This post illustrates one of the reasons scientific research usually raises more questions than it answers. No "study" can ever address all the variables in any "final" way.
Many people (not necessarily me) would argue that race is hardwired before birth, and homosexuality is acquired. The point of the article is not refuted even if the comparison is invalid. The point is to allow all sides of the question to be aired, which is exactly what you did, and what I'm doing.
I totally agree with this process. As a once very orthodox Catholic, restrictive thinking about many ideas was not optional. Education and discussion have changed so much regarding how people relate to many moral issues. To restrict thought and debate is against our human nature. People need to be challenged to find solutions for so many issues as our world goes through each problem and issue. Thankyou, Professor Simger for your thoughts.
I generally agree with the article. But what should be done by people who keep bringing up old tropes that have been repeatedly and thoroughly discredited? E.g., young earth and flat earth.
People who want to stifle “good faith” speech, often know that their viewpoint has obvious flaws and are afraid open dialogue will reveal them.
It is a sign of weakness… which explains their desperation to silence dissent.
when truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lie.
All so very well said...thank you!
How do you determine that the offensive material you publish is “the truth”? Aren’t you really saying “What if our material is offensive? Publish it anyway, regardless of whether it’s true or not.” I’d hope your journal allows for ensuing debate, but do yiu have any criteria for filtering out which “controversial” articles are initially published?
I think the whole point is that the only way "truth" can be arrived at, if at all, is by open debate. This is how the scientific method is supposed to work. I presume the editors of the journal choose to publish what would be constructive debate.
Thanks for the comment, Glen
As an autodidact historian , physiologist, and UFologist, I read research from several authors of the same subject, from books and Internet, and thus create a consensus in addition to using common sense of the information or the historical event.
For instance, after years of study, I've concluded extraterrestrial aliens are fabricated, that UFO's are all products of Pentagon Black Projects USAP program, and that Nikola Tesla and the Germans were the first to create anti-gravity technology. Why are UFOs non-confrontational? Because they're ours! Made in the USA. But all suppressed. Thus, common sense dictates the technology is suppressed to protect the national and international petroleum industry from economic calamity.
Dittos for Germany beginning in 1914. They did not start WWI and thus did not deserve the punitive Versailles Treaty. International Jewry declared economic and holly war against Germany in March 1933, and Britain declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939. So who started WW2, The Jews? The Brits? Or perhaps was it British/Jewish jealousy over Germany's anti-Cabal Economic Miracle of 1933 to 1939 that caused Britain and the Cabal to decry Hitler and Schacht's success during a time of world-wide economic Depression?
What's the most profitable business in the world? Of course, WAR, of which the Cabal, the controllers of world finance, loves! (Perhaps no more since Trump as perhaps defanged them)
The latter information is not found in popular media. In fact, it's suppressed. But why not tell the truth? Because the winners are "always right" because during war, their atrocities might be even worse than the losers. In post WW2 France, Eisenhower murdered 1.2 million German POWs. Suppressed. Both Churchill, FDR and Eisenhower violated the Geneva Convention with millions of homicides against civilians by aerial firebombing...Suppressed (except Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
Even FDR said that "anything involving politics, you can bet it's planned?"
Hence, to get to the truth, one has to dig, and dig, and dig and eventually you arrive at the truth.
Dittos for the Bible. Took me three years of study to realize the Truth.
The Duke of Wellington said "Publish and be damned!" but I think there was a side chick involved. Anyway, in more courageous times that was a popular saying in Fleet Street.
If publication does nothing but embarrass the person(s) involved, it's just gossip-fodder. Knowing about it titillates a certain kind of person and that's it! Others wish they never knew.
A major societal force that skews many of the topics reasonably considered here is that social media (and even conventional media to some extent) can distribute ideas at the speed of light (A rumor makes it half way around the world before the truth even gets its boots on- Mark Twain, I think).
If the truth, or the various takes on The Truth that taken all together compose The Truth, could be represented in the discussion of ideas as strongly as various falsehoods, half-truths, and outright lies the field might be a bit more level. But with a social emphasis on clicks, viewers, likes, shares, and eyeballs there is a profound pressure to "publish" and "distribute" attractive garbage.
That is how I would explain the desire to limit discussion. It is an attempt to limit the rapid spread of garbage.
What happens if one silences speech that has no basis or evidence?
*emplode
April 2013, I discovered the World's largest impact crater. Using Google Earth as a magnifying glass, I have a plethora of visual evidence for how the Earth was formed. I have tried to publish my findings in a number of scientific journals, but, as my discoveries proves that Geophysics is a Fraud, no-one has the acumen to challenge.
If interested check my blog.
Cheers Steve.
stevenrusselljeffs.blogspot.com
Thanks to the Internet, the truth can be verified. Additionally, false or mendacious assertions and information can be disputed by consensus of the research articles.
For instance when the FDA stated that Ivermectin was toxic and could not eliminate Covid symptoms, the consensus was that the FDA was lying, and that Ivermectin was actually a harmless and inexpensive remedy after we learned from Internet research that it prevented damaging spike protein from entering cells.
For those interested in the detailed truth of naturopathic medicine and physiology, subscribe to The Midwestern Doctor and Dr. Mercola.
Randy, you're correct in that a true searcher of truth may be able to get to the truth via the Internet. Unfortunately, with the gradual advancement of AI, truth is becoming incredibly difficult to get to. I'm with many other people, thinking that the Internet will explode and a return to the library will be our future. It's too difficult and more importantly, too expensive to perpetuate a lie via books. As an aside, it certainly doesn't help when you have a POTUS and a VPOTUS who are part of the problem of spreading lies, cloaked as truths via the Internet. Or worse yet, admitteding to the lies, and justifying their usage in the "greater good" clothing.
The comparison of a gay person with a white person who identifies as black is invalid, since a homosexuality is hard-wired before birth, whereas race is not hard-wired, but acquired. This post illustrates one of the reasons scientific research usually raises more questions than it answers. No "study" can ever address all the variables in any "final" way.
Many people (not necessarily me) would argue that race is hardwired before birth, and homosexuality is acquired. The point of the article is not refuted even if the comparison is invalid. The point is to allow all sides of the question to be aired, which is exactly what you did, and what I'm doing.
I totally agree with this process. As a once very orthodox Catholic, restrictive thinking about many ideas was not optional. Education and discussion have changed so much regarding how people relate to many moral issues. To restrict thought and debate is against our human nature. People need to be challenged to find solutions for so many issues as our world goes through each problem and issue. Thankyou, Professor Simger for your thoughts.
I generally agree with the article. But what should be done by people who keep bringing up old tropes that have been repeatedly and thoroughly discredited? E.g., young earth and flat earth.
Let them.