Scientists shouldn't debate gaslighters

[Mosby]

Last weekend, Twitter and later the mainstream media exploded with a controversy surrounding an invitation to prominent vaccine scientist Peter Hotez to debate anti-vax charlatan and spoiler presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr on the podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience. There was an immediate rally around Hotez by scientists and celebrities on Twitter and lots of discussion about why this invitation is a classic anti-science setup.

Hucksters like RFK Jr are skilled at flooding the zone with garbage. Kennedy recently told Rogan that Wi-Fi could open the blood-brain barrier and cause cancer. Absurd statements like this are a trap for scientists. A scientist wants to explain how conservation of energy works and why Kennedy’s assertion violates just about every principle there is in chemistry and physics. This approach sets up two huge problems. First, it gives RFK’s garbage equal footing with principles that have been established by centuries of science. The second is that to a lay listener, the scientist just comes off as fitting the stereotype of a nitpicking nerd and RFK looks like a powerful communicator. Hotez debating RFK about vaccines would produce the same result.

https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/scientists-shouldn-t-debate-gaslighters

[3catwoman3]

1. Don't dignify his bullshit by "debating" him.

Pointless.

[hunter]

7. I'm an evolutionary biologist by natural inclination and some formal training.

I learned a long time ago that "debating" Creationists was futile.

Regretfully, this has not made me a better person. I've put some down, keeping them out of our public schools by raw intimidation.

Alas, they wear that as a badge of honor when they are making their pitches to the private Creationist Christian schools. These guys live to be "persecuted." They wear it as a badge of honor.

[3catwoman3]

8. In my many years as a pediatric nurse practitioner, I knew...

…the moment a parent said any variation of not believing in/not trusting immunizations that there was ZERO point in trying to change their minds. They’ve always done their”own” research, which only means they have found people whose opinions are the same as theirs.

I’m now happily retired, and was pleased to learn that my former employers have finally stopped accepting families who refuse to immunize.

[AllaN01Bear]

2. im glad i dont play there .

[RockRaven]

3. It's the same principle that discourages biologists from debating evolution with creationists. nt

[Maru Kitteh]

4. what a dismal sack of rabid squirrels that man is.

[anciano]

5. Agreed.

"The best lesson you can teach an irritating gnat is to consign it to oblivion by ignoring it." --- Robert Greene

[stopdiggin]

6. while scientist and doctors are sometimes reluctant to 'choose up sides'

(with some justification and sound reason)
I think it is important that they sometimes be encouraged to do so (particularly in areas of 'settled science.')
In the form of position papers, petition, signing statements of support, et.al.

Point being - rather than a 'debate' with the know nothings (which, as OP points out, is a thoroughly bad idea) - it allows for the simple statement, "The vast majority of people working within this discipline (and here are the numbers, XYZ, 98.6%) - are in complete disagreement with the position you espouse." End of discussion.

[Caliman73]

9. Except there are no "sides"...

There is what we know and what actually works in the world, then there is the lies and ignorance espoused by idiots.

Those aren't "sides".

It is like saying, I am going to choose a side in the debate as to whether 2 + 2 = 4. There is what we know and there is the rest...

Now, there is always debate in science. There are several competing theories on the exact mechanisms of evolution and their relative importance, but there is NO debate about the FACT that evolution is the process by which the diversity and development of life on earth came to be.

Even acknowledging that creationists or anti-vaxxers have an argument to make is giving them more credit than they deserve.

[stopdiggin]

10. and yet - you have credentialed MDs

(and others in health care) that are anti-vaxers ...
And pushing their point of view. Now you might feel better in proclaiming 'not science.' But it doesn't change the fact that they have a voice, and influence, within the community.

Which is why I think it somewhat important that opposing MDs (even if somewhat reluctantly) be encouraged to say (and say publicly), "NONSENSE! That is not what the medical community believes!"

So, yeah - it is kinda' about choosing up sides ...

[Caliman73]

11. They only have a voice because a very small minority of people want to hear it...

There were credentialed doctors who said smoking cigarettes was healthy for you too. They were being paid to say it.

There are credentialed professionals who say climate change is not happening and/or human carbon dioxide emissions are not a factor in it. They are being paid.

The problem is that a mistrust of science and expertise has infiltrated society, spurred on and funded by people who make large sums of money from doing things that damage humanity.

To give them a platform is to give them validity.

I will definitely concede or stipulate that professionals who understand and accept the science should be out there and much more vocal in denouncing falsehoods. I just do not think that it should come in the form of debate. I do not think that a scientist should sit across from a charlatan or fool to discuss the controversy. The controversy is not that there are two differing views. The controversy is that someone is getting paid to lie, or that someone is deluded enough to accept a premise for which there is no evidence.

If you feel that "choosing sides" encapsulates that idea, then we can just leave it at that. I think we both want the same thing, I believe, just have different ideas about addressing the situation.

[stopdiggin]

12. you think the anti-vaxers (and anti-maskers)

represent 'a very small minority?' Boy - that certainly wasn't my experience! Must be a different social cross section ...

And - my comments (if read correctly, and perhaps that is partly my fault) were never an endorsement of 'debate.' Quite the opposite in fact. I believe that attempts - both at the level of casual discourse, and at the professional/credentialed level - should be be summarily dismissed and shut down, just as I proposed. To whit, "That is NOT what the consensus opinion in the discipline has concluded." End of story.

What I do endorse is doctors and scientist being much more vocal (position papers, petitions, opinion pieces, etc.) in denouncing and debunking misinformation and junk science.