[mcguire]

(So we've already given up on "Truth is not determined by a list of approved opinions, it can only be revealed by rigorously disproving everything that opposes it" then. Fine. Truth is relative.)

No, what I'm really asking is, "What happens if innocent people start being hurt by the lie?"

What happens if you are seriously injured in an accident but cannot get medical help because the intensive care facilities are full of people who disagree with the truth? Thoughts and prayers?

Does freedom come with any responsibility?

[teakettle42]

> No, what I'm really asking is, "What happens if innocent people start being hurt by the lie?"

That would suggest we might benefit from a better mechanism for establishing the truth.

The best mechanism we’ve come up with so far is open and vibrant debate.

Do you have a better suggestion?

> What happens if you are seriously injured in an accident but cannot get medical help because the intensive care facilities are full of people who disagree with the truth?

The Rolling Stone story positing the above turned out to be entirely fabricated.

How would you propose we stem misinformation like that Rolling Stone article?

> Thoughts and prayers?

Open and vibrant debate.

> Does freedom come with any responsibility?

Sure it does, though assessing culpability is often a nightmarish impossibility, especially a priori.

Should we establish prior restraints on individual’s freedoms to enforce correct speech and beliefs?

If not, then what exactly are you proposing?

[mcguire]

"The best mechanism we’ve come up with so far is open and vibrant debate.

"Do you have a better suggestion?"

I do not. But open and vibrant debate only works when people are capable of determining when the debate has been settled, at least for the moment. And are willing to accept the settled decision.

Have you ever had a serious chat with a creationist? Of course, there is no positive evidence that can disprove the young earth theory, any more than you can disprove solipsism. The creationist argument ultimately fails because of the implications of its own flexibility. I've known people who claim that the faster they drive, the better they drive. Or that they are perfectly safe to drive stoned or drunk. fortunately, in those cases culpability is, as you point out, is easy.

Anti-intellectualism comes in many varieties. Someone can be so skeptical that they do not accept any argument because, say, Big Media and The Man are out to oppress them...somehow. Someone else can be so un-skeptical as to believe the first comforting story that comes along in spite of any facts suggesting that reality is harsher.

Open and vibrant debate is the only way to establish the truth, but truth is not established by popularity, nor by who yells the loudest.

"The Rolling Stone story positing the above turned out to be entirely fabricated.

"How would you propose we stem misinformation like that Rolling Stone article?"

I have no idea what Rolling Stone article you are talking about. Is it one of these:

https://www.kwch.com/2021/08/25/family-mcpherson-man-dies-wa...

https://abcnews.go.com/US/oregon-covid-19-patient-unable-icu...

https://abc13.com/us-army-veteran-daniel-wilkinson-michelle-...

"Open and vibrant debate."

Not really an answer to my question, but I'm sure it's very comforting to intensive care patients spending hours to days on gurneys in hospital hallways.

https://www.wtvy.com/2021/08/18/alabamas-hospital-crisis-int...

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/patients-being-tran...

Freedom is easy if it doesn't come with responsibility, precisely because culpability is often a nightmare to identify. How many people are you willing to injure or kill in the name of freedom?

Should we just get used to the fact that there are no limits on lies and an idea just dreamed up by some rando on the internet is just as true as something from a so-called expert?

If not, then what exactly are you proposing?