Does Censorship Make Sense When ‘Following the Science’?

The Side That Is On The Side Of Censorship Is Not On The Side Of Science

There are a lot of us who aren’t scientists but who are deeply interested in the scientific process of investigation.

When we care about getting to the bottom of things the scientific approach or logic is a very useful tool.

‘Following science’ is synonymous with ‘following logic’ - which is very different than following emotion. Emotion picks and chooses what information it wants to consider based on all kinds of personal variables like protecting our image, finances, or job. Science, however, doesn’t care about any of that.     

Emotional considerations such as “What will people think if I look into that information” or “I already have enough data to analyze and reach a conclusion so I don’t need to consider those conflicting reports” have no place in science. Logic doesn’t care what others think and it doesn’t exclude information because it seems to conflict.  

When trying to get to the truth of a situation censorship of information is illogical – and unscientific. It’s anti-science to pick and choose what information to look at based on fear or some personal agenda. Science has no purpose other than getting to the truth of the situation – personal considerations are immaterial.

Can you imagine one scientist calling another scientist ‘anti-science’ for continuing their investigation when they become aware of results that seem to conflict with their own? That would be ludicrous. No true scientist would ever do that. Scientists welcome all information without exception.

In order to determine whether we’re truly interested in science it’s helpful to become aware of whether we’re open to all information. Are we censoring what information we’re willing to consider? Are we listening only to the information of those who are censoring information? 

If we listen to and consider only information by those who are actually censoring information then we are being kept in the dark. There is no way to get around that fact. Censored information is information designed to keep people in the dark. And to keep people in the dark is anti-science.

The side that is on the side of open discussion is the side that is on the side of science. The side that is on the side of censorship is not. What censorship is promoting is not science – it is illogical to believe otherwise.

If we truly care about science we will be in favor of open discussion of all conflicting results.


What would a conscious, healthy society do -

allow the free flow of information or suppress it?


If this resonated with you, please sign up for this free newsletter.

Thank you for reading!

Share