Many orthodox people speak as
though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than
dogmatists to prove them. This is, of
course, a mistake. If I were to suggest
that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun
in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I
were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most
powerful telescopes. But if I were to go
on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable
presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought
to be talking nonsense.[1]
So spoke Bertrand Russell, a well respected philosopher. Whilst smoking has nothing to do with
philosophy or flying teapots, the point he made most certainly does. What he is saying is that firstly, it is up
to people with the claim to prove it, not those opposing the claim to disprove
it, as a negative cannot be proved i.e. it cannot be proven smoking is not
harmful, thus it is down to those who believe it is harmful to prove
as much. Russell then makes an equally
important point: just because something cannot be disproved does not instantly
make the claim true. In other words, if
someone like Stanton Glantz were to say you cannot prove smoking is not
harmful, therefore it is then people would rightly tell him that is wrong. However, because the anti-smoking crusaders
have built up an impressive catalogue to prove smoking is harmful, everybody
agrees that it is despite the fact that hardly anyone of the public has
actually read the studies, and despite the fact that they are entirely
bogus.
More perplexing is that when scientists emerge and say they are bogus or
smoking has not been solidly linked to disease, people get up in arms and
protest about how stupid that person is but how would they know, without
assessing the evidence for themselves?
All they are doing is believing the side with the loudest voice.
One thing that I am aware of is that many people believe that smoking is
harmful otherwise there would not be warnings on the packets. Well, in part they are right the warnings
are on the packets because it is a commonly held belief that smoking is harmful,
and there is a huge fuss about getting people to stop. Then again, there are plenty of other things
without health warnings that perhaps should have for instance, cars do not
come with a warning that a crash could paralyse or kill; junk food does not come
with warnings of how it could damage health; alcohol, as of yet, does not have a
warning stating the many problems abuse could lead to (though there are plans to
get a government health warning on alcohol products).
[1] taken from Dawkins, R 2006 The God Delusion Black Swan
Books
This is a chapter sample. The full chapter is not available to read online