[deleted]
Scientists Shouldn’t Debate Gaslighters
11–18 of 18 posts
Re: Scientists Shouldn’t Debate Gaslighters
#12I 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?
Re: Scientists Shouldn’t Debate Gaslighters
#13I 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”.
Re: Scientists Shouldn’t Debate Gaslighters
#14I 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?
Re: Scientists Shouldn’t Debate Gaslighters
#15I 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?
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.
Re: Scientists Shouldn’t Debate Gaslighters
#16Perhaps 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 B…
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.
Re: Scientists Shouldn’t Debate Gaslighters
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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.
>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.
Re: Scientists Shouldn’t Debate Gaslighters
#18I 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.