Scientists Shouldn’t Debate Gaslighters
science.org
Scientists Shouldn’t Debate Gaslighters
1–10 of 18 posts
Re: Scientists Shouldn’t Debate Gaslighters
#2I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with using "gaslighters" as the term. VERY few people online seem to have a grasp of what gaslighting actually is, and when we want to describe dishonest/disruptive interlocutors, better terminology already exists.
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.
Re: Scientists Shouldn’t Debate Gaslighters
#3I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with using "gaslighters" as the term. VERY few people online seem to have a grasp of what gaslighting actually is, and when we want to describe dishonest/disruptive interlocutors, better terminology already exists. 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.…
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)
Re: Scientists Shouldn’t Debate Gaslighters
#4I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with using "gaslighters" as the term. VERY few people online seem to have a grasp of what gaslighting actually is, and when we want to describe dishonest/disruptive interlocutors, better terminology already exists. 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.…
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.
Re: Scientists Shouldn’t Debate Gaslighters
#5I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with using "gaslighters" as the term. VERY few people online seem to have a grasp of what gaslighting actually is, and when we want to describe dishonest/disruptive interlocutors, better terminology already exists. 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.…
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)
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.
Re: Scientists Shouldn’t Debate Gaslighters
#6"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...
Re: Scientists Shouldn’t Debate Gaslighters
#7Perhaps 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.
Re: Scientists Shouldn’t Debate Gaslighters
#8I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with using "gaslighters" as the term. VERY few people online seem to have a grasp of what gaslighting actually is, and when we want to describe dishonest/disruptive interlocutors, better terminology already exists. 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.…
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]
Re: Scientists Shouldn’t Debate Gaslighters
#9"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 g…
> 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.
Re: Scientists Shouldn’t Debate Gaslighters
#10Agree 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