Responsible Woo

[PsychoticEpisode]

This news reminded of a story years ago where a guy (RIP) was searching for a reported ghost train but a real train found him first.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2-oregon-men-died-exposure-search-sasquatch-washington-state/#

Just a thought…..I’m thinking beliefs should come with a caveat. Do those who endorse and promote woo bear any responsibility to those who die trying to prove unfounded claims/beliefs? Perhaps, but I think it might be more in line with gun owners being responsible for careless use of those weapons or having a dope dealer responsible for selling a drug that causes death of the user. Only thing different might be that woo proponents seem to applaud a hunt for evidence. The belief in cryptids, ghosts, monsters, heaven/hell, and God knows whatever else there’s no evidence for doesn’t seem to be discouraged by fanatical believers. Religions have their martyrs, so what would the two guys from Oregon be?

 

[exchemist]

This news reminded of a story years ago where a guy (RIP) was searching for a reported ghost train but a real train found him first.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2-oregon-men-died-exposure-search-sasquatch-washington-state/#

Just a thought…..I’m thinking beliefs should come with a caveat. Do those who endorse and promote woo bear any responsibility to those who die trying to prove unfounded claims/beliefs? Perhaps, but I think it might be more in line with gun owners being responsible for careless use of those weapons or having a dope dealer responsible for selling a drug that causes death of the user. Only thing different might be that woo proponents seem to applaud a hunt for evidence. The belief in cryptids, ghosts, monsters, heaven/hell, and God knows whatever else there’s no evidence for doesn’t seem to be discouraged by fanatical believers. Religions have their martyrs, so what would the two guys from Oregon be?

Competitors for the Darwin Award, perhaps?

I would agree that those responsible for knowingly disseminating damaging or dangerous falsehoods should be held accountable for direct any consequences of that. However people who are merely credulous, go in for bullshit ideas and try to convince others are not in that category.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Competitors for the Darwin Award, perhaps?

I would agree that those responsible for knowingly disseminating damaging or dangerous falsehoods should be held accountable for direct any consequences of that. However people who are merely credulous, go in for bullshit ideas and try to convince others are not in that category.

Darwin Award? Absolutely, should have its own category. At least separate it from dying for religious belief, ideologies, etc. I didn’t want to open a huge can of worms with this because there’s a lot of beliefs out there….lol. Trying to focus on ghosts, cryptids, UFOs, monsters and any belief associated with the paranormal.

I just think that if you’re in the habit of perpetuating these myths and in turn people are driven to investigate them to a point where they put their lives at risk, then you should accept some responsibility for any deaths that may occur.

 

[exchemist]

Darwin Award? Absolutely, should have its own category. At least separate it from dying for religious belief, ideologies, etc. I didn’t want to open a huge can of worms with this because there’s a lot of beliefs out there….lol. Trying to focus on ghosts, cryptids, UFOs, monsters and any belief associated with the paranormal.

I just think that if you’re in the habit of perpetuating these myths and in turn people are driven to investigate them to a point where they put their lives at risk, then you should accept some responsibility for any deaths that may occur.

OK then yes I agree proponents of nutty ideas ought, morally, to feel some sense of responsibility when stupid people act on their ideas and come to harm. I don’t think this can be given any legal force, though.

 

[DaveC426913]

OK then yes I agree proponents of nutty ideas ought, morally, to feel some sense of responsibility when stupid people act on their ideas and come to harm. I don’t think this can be given any legal force, though.

There is certainly precedent if the nutty idea proponent advises - or implies advice for - anyone to do something and that person comes to harm. They can be held liable.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

‘

There is certainly precedent if the nutty idea proponent advises - or implies advice for - anyone to do something and that person comes to harm. They can be held liable.

I remember this mix of religion and ufo belief…….Makes me wonder, if he hadn’t also died, whether back in ‘97 Marshall Applewhite would have been held liable for 38 suicides. Those people all believed in a flying saucer hiding behind Hale-Bopp Comet that was to be their soul’s destination/salvation. If those people didn’t believe flying saucers were real then perhaps the whole Heavens Gate religious cult never happens.

Maybe by itself UFO belief is only mildly dangerous but when combined with religious belief it’s much more lethal.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

OK then yes I agree proponents of nutty ideas ought, morally, to feel some sense of responsibility when stupid people act on their ideas and come to harm. I don’t think this can be given any legal force, though.

If they are not just lying in their nuttiness, they are not responsible for others stupid actions.
If I said I knew for sure you could fly if you jumped off the Empire State building, and you did, it would be your own fault for believing me.

 

[DaveC426913]

If they are not just lying in their nuttiness, they are not responsible for others stupid actions.
If I said I knew for sure you could fly if you jumped off the Empire State building, and you did, it would be your own fault for believing me.

Apparently, in UK, you can face up to five years just for the suggestion, never mind whether or not they actually take your advice.

Trolls who encourage serious self-harm to face jail

New offence for encouraging serious self-harm with perpetrators facing 5 years behind bars.

www.gov.uk

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

Not all nutty ideas are wrong. Maybe incomplete but not wrong. Only called wrong and nutty by those with dissenting views.

 

[Pinball1970]

Not all nutty ideas are wrong. Maybe incomplete but not wrong. Only called wrong and nutty by those with dissenting views.

Astrophysicists and Cosmologists have crazy ideas all the time, they explore them, develop models, does the data play ball with their ideas? They look at it, test it, look at lots of different data sets they are falling thick and fast from JWST, Hubble, Gaia, Euclid and Vera Rubin.
Being wrong a lot is inevitable if you want to the truth.

This is a whole different ballgame to some random person thinking that the Universe might be alien vibrations in cosmic time.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

Being wrong a lot is inevitable if you want to the truth.

No one is right all the time. And no one is wrong all the time.

This is a whole different ballgame to some random person thinking that the Universe might be alien vibrations in cosmic time.

He is probably wrong, but he doesn't have the wherewithal to investigate, because no one will fund it. This is true for ideas far less outrageous than this one.