The idea that we have to silence these people because they are spreading incorrect information implies that no one has any personal responsibility to educate themselves.
Personally, I thought that it was hilarious that Peterson criticized climate scientists for building models without the full information, because that is exactly what his field of clinical psychologists do.
Your argument is that because some people choose to get their information about the vax and climate change from people that are not experts in those fields none of us should have access to that media.
If that is how you feel you should also be in favor of shutting down fast food restaurants and liquor stores because some people don't take responsibility in those areas and become obese and alcoholics.
I don't think the argument is that Rogan or such guests shouldn't have any way to express themselves. Rather that carelessly platforming any contrarían in a lazy attempt at balance is harmful.
These people are more than welcome to setup a blog and write up their views should they wish but there is an astronomical difference between them posting their views on whatever subject they wish and inviting them onto a podcast listened to by tens of millions as if they are some sort of respected expert in the subject.
Also as I said in my original post this is not just aimed at Rogan's podcast but the media in general. Many times I have seen experts in a subject with decades of experience sat next to a random person from MumsNet or some other online community with anecdotes and nothing more. Yet they are sat side by side, given similar air time to communicate their views as if they are in some way 'equals' on the subject which is misrepresentation.
In no way am I saying the non-expert random person should be silenced but they also should not be given such a wide reaching platform due to laziness of the "news" service to find an actual expert to argue the other side.
They deserve free speech, but only if 50k people read it, not if 100M watch a video about it? How do you tell the 99M that they don't deserve to watch this media?
Spotify doesn't have to bankroll grifters. If 99M people want something bad enough they'll find a way to get it. In fact before the Spotify exclusive Rogan could be found and listened to via any podcatcher or index.
I never said we have to silence them. I don't think we have to give them a megaphone to hundreds of millions of people unchecked either though. Why should we give a platform to any random person? Do we no longer care about a persons expertise on the subject?
> Your argument is that because some people choose to get their information about the vax and climate change from people that are not experts in those fields none of us should have access to that media.
Again not what I said and you know it.
> If that is how you feel you should also be in favor of shutting down fast food restaurants and liquor stores because some people don't take responsibility in those areas and become obese and alcoholics.
No, I would be in favour of better educating people. You know by having them get information from actual experts with regards to their bodily health to either lose weight/never become obese in the first place, show how to enjoy alcohol without it becoming an addiction, etc.
>Why should we give a platform to any random person? Do we no longer care about a persons expertise on the subject?
In 2002 all of the media and the experts said that Saddam Hussain had WMDs and ties to Al-Qaeda and we went to war and hundreds of thousands of innocent people died.
I'm not saying that experts don't exist, I would much rather have the chief surgeon at Harvard perform surgery on me than some random guy off the street. But, the idea that "non-experts" shouldn't be able to you cannot question climate scientists on a large platform gets your right back to the Iraq war situation.
Honestly, I wish people took climate change more seriously, and I wish that people didn't become alcoholics and obese, but that is a tradeoff that exists in a free country.
>But, the idea that "non-experts" shouldn't be able to you cannot question climate scientists on a large platform gets your right back to the Iraq war situation.
I'm not saying you cannot question climate scientists though. I'm not saying you cannot question any expert.
The difference, and my complaint, is that this isn't just questioning experts but taking an expert and a non-expert and treating them as if they are equal experts in the subject. People listen to these non-experts in a subject (because they are an expert in some other subject) and accept what they are saying as correct.
If you want to discuss clinical psychology then by all means have Jordon Peterson on, after all he is a clinical psychologist.
But don't ask a clinical psychologist about quantum computing or climate change or any other subject they're not an expert on and present what they say as if they're an expert.
Imagine inviting a race horse breeder on a show to discuss horse racing and then the conversation pivots to Formula 1 engines and race car physics and you treat what they say as expert advice because well horse racing and Formula 1 are both racing sports aren't they. Surely this persons knowledge of breeding a horse transfers over right? That's about the same level of "transfer" that Jordon Peterson's clinical psychologist background has to climate change science.
As for Iraq and WMD that is a far more complicated discussion and the comment section of Hacker News is not the place for it.
This is the difference, I actually would like to hear a expert horse racer's thoughts on F1 racing. I'm not saying that a house racer is better at F1 racing than an experienced F1 racer, but it would be interesting to get their perspective.
Jordan Peterson clearly doesn't understand climate change in detail, I understand that, and I can watch him talk without thinking that climate change is a hoax.
That isn't what I said. I specifically said "Formula 1 engines and race car physics". I put it this way because I mean the specifics of Formula 1 engines and car physics. Not a general chat about Formula 1 but specific specialist areas.
Sure if it was just a general "oh what do you think of F1?" and they shared their personal opinion then fine but if they start saying stuff like "All the F1 engineers in the whole world don't know what they're doing" nobody is going to take them seriously (or you would hope not).
It is this important point, general opinion vs specific area expertise, that is the big issue for me.
Following the Dr Peterson example, had he said something like "oof I think climate change is all overblown and stupid and I don't agree with any of it" then that is his opinion and of course he is entitled to voice his own opinion.
But he didn't say that, he went in to attack specifics about climate models that he patently has no expertise in but talks as if he does. He presented it as if he is sharing factual information and that "nobody" working in climate science is correct.
All climate projections are models without full information over a long period of time. He is correct about that. The issue is that he isn't proving the opposite, he doesn't have any proof that increased CO2 levels will cause minimal problems over the long run.
Personally, I thought that it was hilarious that Peterson criticized climate scientists for building models without the full information, because that is exactly what his field of clinical psychologists do.
Your argument is that because some people choose to get their information about the vax and climate change from people that are not experts in those fields none of us should have access to that media.
If that is how you feel you should also be in favor of shutting down fast food restaurants and liquor stores because some people don't take responsibility in those areas and become obese and alcoholics.