Scientists Shouldn’t Debate Gaslighters(science.org)
science.org
Scientists Shouldn’t Debate Gaslighters
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/scientists-shouldn-t-debate-gaslighters
7 comments
I agree- it's more like "don't debate the conspiracy theorists" since that's what RFK Jr is. And Rogan is just amoral- he doesn't care what gets said, regardless of impact, as long as he gets more listeners.
(to me, and I think probably you, "gaslighting" means to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt in other people by making them question their ability to interpret reality through psychological tricks)
(to me, and I think probably you, "gaslighting" means to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt in other people by making them question their ability to interpret reality through psychological tricks)
I couldn't agree with you more, both on the definition of 'gaslighting' and the nature of people like Rogan who exist in the attention economy.
It's not entirely coincidental that the people who advocate for absolute free speech and claim "sunlight is the best disinfectant" also tend to have an agenda to see disinformation, bunk and nonsense spread like wildfire.
[deleted]
I honestly would have loved to have seen the debate. It seems like everything is one sided these days. Why can't people debate with their minds?
Could you tell me, in honest words, what you think would come from the debate? Would it generate any additional information that would allow intelligent people to judge anything about the debated topic? Or do you just want to see a slugfest?
Most people have made up their minds on one side of this debate. But there is a possibility that some people may change their minds if the expert is persuasive.
It would demonstrate to the public what a real expert like Peter Hotez or Paul Offit is next to an ambulance chaser like RFK. RFK is the most prominent anti-vaxxer around. Humiliating him would cut the legs of the movement.
This was also a huge loss for charity. The $3M could have helped a lot of people.
This was also a huge loss for charity. The $3M could have helped a lot of people.
>Humiliating him would cut the legs of the movement.
No, it wouldn't, at all. People have been humiliating conspiracy theorists with the facts for decades, and the only result is that conspiracy theory has become mainstream. If all it took was a superior rational argument from an expert to convince people of the error of anti-vaxxers, there would be no anti-vaxxers. Yet even on HN, a forum that should be a nexus of rational thought, they dominate any thread where vaccines are a subject. The "sunlight is the best disinfectant" shit isn't working.
What will happen is exactly what people like RFK want to happen - their message will spread, the "experts" will be reframed and reedited and taken out of context through memes and bad-faith videos and exposes, and people will (as they always do) have sympathy for the "underdog" (the anti-vaxxers) and skepticism towards "experts" and wonder what they must be trying to hide.
No, it wouldn't, at all. People have been humiliating conspiracy theorists with the facts for decades, and the only result is that conspiracy theory has become mainstream. If all it took was a superior rational argument from an expert to convince people of the error of anti-vaxxers, there would be no anti-vaxxers. Yet even on HN, a forum that should be a nexus of rational thought, they dominate any thread where vaccines are a subject. The "sunlight is the best disinfectant" shit isn't working.
What will happen is exactly what people like RFK want to happen - their message will spread, the "experts" will be reframed and reedited and taken out of context through memes and bad-faith videos and exposes, and people will (as they always do) have sympathy for the "underdog" (the anti-vaxxers) and skepticism towards "experts" and wonder what they must be trying to hide.
Agree other comments, it's not gaslighting. Knowing what terms mean is sort of important.
As for out there and up a tree, if there are facts, they are always welcome. However much of it often isn't.
I'd say one of the better bits of advice is ...
"Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain
As for out there and up a tree, if there are facts, they are always welcome. However much of it often isn't.
I'd say one of the better bits of advice is ...
"Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain
Perhaps we could bring in some conventions from honor duels to help level the playing field?
Alice thinks Bob has slighted her honor, so Alice challenges Bob to a duel (to first blood, the death, whatever). Bob looks like a sore loser and coward if he backs down, but on the balancing side, Bob gets to pick the date and method of the duel.
Let's convert this into an academic debate based on the article.
Alice thinks Bob's claims regarding the COVID-19 vaccine are wrong, so she challenges him to a debate so she can prove that COVID-19 does in fact make you get mind control from 5G (or whatever conspiracy theory). Bob can choose not to entertain the motion, and his opponents get to claim they are 'just asking questions'. But if Bob accepts, he gets to stipulate that the debate take place on X date and in Y format, so he can choose to say "in 3 weeks, over written communication" which can help curb Alice's desire to 'win' by throwing around so many claims in such rapid fire fashion, there is no opportunity for Bob to properly address them without looking nit-picky or running out of debate time.
Alice thinks Bob has slighted her honor, so Alice challenges Bob to a duel (to first blood, the death, whatever). Bob looks like a sore loser and coward if he backs down, but on the balancing side, Bob gets to pick the date and method of the duel.
Let's convert this into an academic debate based on the article.
Alice thinks Bob's claims regarding the COVID-19 vaccine are wrong, so she challenges him to a debate so she can prove that COVID-19 does in fact make you get mind control from 5G (or whatever conspiracy theory). Bob can choose not to entertain the motion, and his opponents get to claim they are 'just asking questions'. But if Bob accepts, he gets to stipulate that the debate take place on X date and in Y format, so he can choose to say "in 3 weeks, over written communication" which can help curb Alice's desire to 'win' by throwing around so many claims in such rapid fire fashion, there is no opportunity for Bob to properly address them without looking nit-picky or running out of debate time.
Anyone who questioned the covid vaccine because of 5G mind control factors was not rational.
Questioning the covid vaccine because it was not fully tested and the technology has had a history of issues was completely rational.
Questioning the covid vaccine because it was not fully tested and the technology has had a history of issues was completely rational.
I find it appalling that an editor of Science is basically writing an opinion article advocating character assassination and trying to pass it off as “science”.
"a controversy surrounding an invitation to prominent vaccine scientist Peter Hotez to debate anti-vax charlatan and spoiler presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr"
Quite the unbiased opening... a close relative of a beloved President, son of a former Attorney General and also candidate for President, is dismissed as a 'spoiler'?
And what would his political stances matter in a question of science?
This is not good journalism...
Quite the unbiased opening... a close relative of a beloved President, son of a former Attorney General and also candidate for President, is dismissed as a 'spoiler'?
And what would his political stances matter in a question of science?
This is not good journalism...
> This is not good journalism...
Quite the opposite, to do good journalism you need to avoid[1]. Reality happens to exists, and science journalists shouldn't pretend otherwise by assuming that every single assertion no matter how outlandish has equal probability of being true.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance
Quite the opposite, to do good journalism you need to avoid[1]. Reality happens to exists, and science journalists shouldn't pretend otherwise by assuming that every single assertion no matter how outlandish has equal probability of being true.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance
[deleted]
As a headline I feel like that's easy to ignore or deride, when it makes a good point which reflects the general consensus in academia and beyond.
Don't. Feed. The. Trolls.