Peter Hitchens once again launches himself against scientific consensus by trashing the idea that isolation is required to mitigate the effects of COVID-19.
Hitchens has a long history of discounting scientific consensus when it doesn’t align with his personal views.
Hitchens has a long history of discounting scientific consensus when it doesn’t align with his personal views.
His arguments always follow the same pattern.
He denigrates his chosen opponent, claiming their argument is “speculation” or “unverified”, no matter how well qualified the protagonist or how solid their evidentiary basis is.
He denigrates his chosen opponent, claiming their argument is “speculation” or “unverified”, no matter how well qualified the protagonist or how solid their evidentiary basis is.
He claims those who disagree with him are servants to the establishment (despite himself being one of the finest examples of The Establishment you could imagine), or motivated by some kind of shady motivations.
He paints himself as a trustworthy critical thinker, merely challenging an orthodoxy supported by weak evidence.
This is, of course, complete bollocks: he has continually challenged subjects which have considerable scientific consensus, based on overwhelming evidence.
This is, of course, complete bollocks: he has continually challenged subjects which have considerable scientific consensus, based on overwhelming evidence.
This pattern is repeated over and over and over again. Climate change, war crimes in Syria, and that evolution is merely a “theory” and “speculation”.
In a multitude of cases he has dismissed the expert consensus and vast amounts of evidence in favour of his own personal bias.
In a multitude of cases he has dismissed the expert consensus and vast amounts of evidence in favour of his own personal bias.
By painting those who point out the gaping flaws in his arguments as nincompoops or sinister agents of authority who base their views on speculation, Hitchens does not create anything approaching open and honest debate. Instead his contributions harms it.
In this case Hitchens failure to accept overwhelming evidence could be physically harmful to thousands of people.
And yes, I do have a bee in my bonnet about Hitchens.
Over the past 6 months I have watched him use his gigantic platform in the Daily Mail to attempt to portray us @bellingcat as sinister agents of authority (a multi-levelled irony that I suspects escapes him).
Over the past 6 months I have watched him use his gigantic platform in the Daily Mail to attempt to portray us @bellingcat as sinister agents of authority (a multi-levelled irony that I suspects escapes him).
He knows nothing about how we work, how most of us spent years working for free with other full time jobs to use OS to examine some of the most egregious crimes of our time, often with great success.
I suspect he doesn’t care about the truth. All that matters is painting himself as an heroic anti-authoritarian figure, despite writing for the largest online news publisher in the world, in support of views that are only contrarian because they are from outdated orthodoxy. End.
