| > force people to behave in line with the best available evidence. I think this… really depends on the behavior. I think, pretty much universally we should never force someone to pretend their beliefs conform to such evidence. But, in certain circumstances, I think it’s absolutely appropriate to force people to conform to our understanding of the world. Consider exaggerating this principle to an extreme degree (to demonstrate that, at least there exists a line where we should force people to conform). Let’s suppose we say it’s illegal to stab a person, because according to our understanding of biology, stabbings make it much more likely that the victim is seriously injured or dies. Suppose there is a person that does not believe stabbing causes injuries. We *should not* force them to change their beliefs. We should not force them to hide their beliefs, or to lie about their beliefs. They should be allowed to openly expesss their views—contrary as they are to our current knowledge. But we should force them not to stab people. We absolutely should force their actions to match our understanding of the world. To take it to a more plausible scenario, imagine someone has an extremely communicable and terminal disease. All our scientific understanding says that, if they deliberately cough in someone’s face, the victim is likely to be harmed or killed. This infected person does not believe in this science. It’s okay that they don’t believe in the science. It’s fine for them to argue that the science is wrong. It should still be illegal for them to deliberately cough in someone’s face if they know they are currently infected. |
And it is interesting to note that the actual principle in the case you raise is that it should be illegal to do anything in someone else's personal space that they don't consent to, which has nothing to do with the state of science.