In the 19th century, Ignaz Semmelweis claimed that hand washing was a way to improve hygiene and communicable disease. If Google had existed in 1847, his claims would have been censored since they went strongly against the scientific consensus. History is littered with examples like this. Most of us with a STEM education spent years learning about example after example of a great scientist or whistleblower that was scorned by the medical or scientific community, and it turned out that countless lives could have been saved if people had kept a more open mind. I am greatly disappointed in anyone who claims to be educated but thinks that censorship is acceptable in a free society.
Or to take a more recent example, should the media have censored Drs. Marshall and Warren in 1982 when they claimed that the scientific consensus about the cause of stomach ulcers was completely wrong? Everyone thought that ulcers were caused by stress and spicy food, but it turned out to be bacterial infections. We always need to be humble and recognize that some things we believe to be correct will later turn out to be false.
> In the 19th century, Ignaz Semmelweis claimed that hand washing was a way to improve hygiene and communicable disease. If Google had existed in 1847, his claims would have been censored since they went strongly against the scientific consensus.
Was there an established practice of peer-reviewed research back in 1847? My understanding is that the scientific community evolved that system because it helps reduce the potential for errors and makes it easier to trust the research.
> Most of us with a STEM education spent years learning about example after example of a great scientist or whistleblower that was scorned by the medical or scientific community, and it turned out that countless lives could have been saved if people had kept a more open mind.
"Open mind" and "communicating responsibly" are not mutually exclusive.
> I am greatly disappointed in anyone who claims to be educated but thinks that censorship is acceptable in a free society.
I am just as disappointed in anyone who thinks that requiring responsible communication is the same as censorship.
Semmelweis was basically lynched (and ruined) by his peers. As usual.
> responsible communication
Yes but the contextual issue here is that of censorship. Or if you proposed a method to filter general publication through criteria involving responsibility, that would require more details.
If Google had existed in 1847, and the web for that matter, he would have been able to create and post as many videos espousing his theories on the web. Either through alternative sites, either by setting up 20 sites of his own for pretty much free, or by emailing, messaging or by buying a $50 laser printer and printing 5,000 pamphlets to hand out, and Google would have had zero power to stop him.
