Article of the week: Martin Robbins on the need for evidence

I suspect there are not many things on which I would agree with New Statesman columnist Martin Robbins, but he wrote a very intelligent article here recently which for me was the most thought provoking thing I have read this week.

He was referring to a court case which the Daily Mail lost against a self-proclaimed "psychic" who they accused of being a fraud.

His point was that, very sadly, they deserved to lose, not because they disagreed with "Psychic Sally" nor because they believe her claim to be able to read minds is ludicrous, but because they had implied that her activities were fraudulent without taking the trouble to collect any actual evidence to back up that allegation.

The fact that "Psychic Sally" won her case does not, repeat not, mean that the British legal system regards her claimed psychic talents as having been "proved." It means that they have upheld the principle that a newspaper, or anybody else, should not suggest that someone of using a hidden earpiece to fool people unless they have actual evidence that the person accused really is using a hidden earpiece to trick people.

There are some more general points which come out of this. Martin Robbins refers to the fact that whenever there is a debate between rationalists and believers it often descends to people making wild accusations they can't prove, and throwing insults. The same thing happens in politics.

Let me be clear - I think it is perfectly legitimate to point to things one's party has achieved or criticise where a rival party has done something wrong. I often get accused of "point scoring" when doing this, but you cannot have a political discussion without looking at the successes and failures of particular policies, and if political candidates or members of a political party don't trumpet their successes, who else is going to do it?

However, criticising someone because they have done something you think is wrong or unwise, and explaining why, when that criticism is based on demonstrable facts is one thing. It is an entirely different matter to assume, let alone to say, just because someone does not share your views or because he or she is a member of a political group that you don't like, that he or she is an idiot or, to coin a phrase, a "swivel-eyed loon."

Nobody has a monopoly of wisdom and there are very few human beings who never make mistakes. It is worth remembering that.