If both sides agree to limit debate to say 10 papers and 10 papers only before hand giving both sides time to research them I think it can be done. Without that limitation the "quacks" can win with verbal diarrhea of bad papers the scientist has never heard of and has no way to refute in real time.
The legal profession has a lot of rules for evidence. I agree that debates should be inspired by these rules.
Modern debate, unfortunately, is more circus than courtroom. Sadly, the goal often is to entertain rather than enlighten. Although it still acts like it seeks to do the latter.
> When vaccine expert Peter Hotez tweeted a link to a thorough critique of Kennedy’s lies and misrepresentations by Vice.com, Rogan challenged Hotez to participate in a public debate with Kennedy.
> There are many reasons why serious scientists should reject these invitations. One is that it gives liars and deceivers legitimacy.
Then Hotez should have kept his criticisms private. As soon as he challenged Rogan in a public forum, he signaled his intention to engage with the anti-vaxx camp.
In reality, though, it's the other way around. It's Rogan who is giving Hotez legitimacy. Rogan has 11 million listeners to his show. RFK Jr. has 1.5 million followers, and Hotez has 455K. That's the reason why Hotez initiated this whole exchange-- he's a small time player who needs attention from the big boys to get noticed.
Since Rogan doesn't use social media that often, he was hoping his tweet would just fly under the radar or be answered by a publicist, or perhaps a booking agent. He wasn't -- and probably will never be -- prepared to do a full debate with RFK.
Academics like Hotez (and the author of this damage control piece) have a somewhat warped view of the social order. They see it as a cathedral, when it's actually a bazaar. Lawyers, social media algorithms, and podcast hosts have a much easier time influencing public opinion than scientists if the people can relate to what they're saying.
I am not debating from a satanic cult leader because I have no need to do so.
Hotez IS seeking legitimacy from Rogan and DOES have a need to do so. That's why he appeared on his show and why he tweeted at him.
Understand how this game is played. The small player challenges the bigger player. When Popeye's came out with a chicken sandwich, they challenged Chick Fil-A, not the other way around.
Agree or not, eleven million people listen to Rogan's show because they see him as balanced, respectful, and inquisitive. The same is not true for Hotez.
>When vaccine expert Peter Hotez tweeted a link to a thorough critique of Kennedy’s lies and misrepresentations by Vice.com, Rogan challenged Hotez to participate in a public debate with Kennedy.
>Hotez refused, though he offered to engage Rogan — whose show he had appeared on before — one on one, a context in which Hotez was prepared to address Rogan’s misconceptions serially. Rogan treated that offer as an evasion, which led to Hotez being accosted at his home by a stranger demanding that he take the bait.
I agree with the sentiment that you don't engage with quacks. At some point, you are legitimizing their wild unsubstantiated claims when you engage with them. But I also think they need to be challenged as well so that they don't get to spread bullshit unchecked. Thats what Hotez was doing.
So, lets give Hotez some credit here, because he also offered to discuss Rogan's misconceptions. He just refused to 'debate' an unqualified, uncredentialed pseudo-'expert' who very likely wouldn't approach the debate in good faith. It would be giving that person a platform to throw around more misinformation and "their own research".
Also, Hotez reluctance to debate is validated by the absolute wackjobs that are coming out of the woodwork to harass him. Someone stalking him at his house? Being piled-on by Muskovites and Rogan fans, and anti-vax lunatics. Yea, really selling him on debating! I'm sure that group of people will be swayed by verifiable scientific evidence.
The rapey porn dude in a Romanian prison has millions of devoted followers. he should have zero. It is appalling anyone follows him. But now we know there are millions of worthless followers of worthless men with microphones.
So, the author, a "business columnist" knows the complete truth about vaccines and COVID. Maybe he should debate RFK, Jr. Since he's a "quack", it ought to be easy.
Mark Twain spoke against arguing with idiots, saying that they would drag you down to their own level and beat you with experience.
Doubtless it's all a matter of perspective, as to who's the idiot, but if you apply Twain's advice whenever you encounter unreasonable resistance you can nearly always save yourself a lot of energy.
13 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 36.8 ms ] threadModern debate, unfortunately, is more circus than courtroom. Sadly, the goal often is to entertain rather than enlighten. Although it still acts like it seeks to do the latter.
> There are many reasons why serious scientists should reject these invitations. One is that it gives liars and deceivers legitimacy.
Then Hotez should have kept his criticisms private. As soon as he challenged Rogan in a public forum, he signaled his intention to engage with the anti-vaxx camp.
In reality, though, it's the other way around. It's Rogan who is giving Hotez legitimacy. Rogan has 11 million listeners to his show. RFK Jr. has 1.5 million followers, and Hotez has 455K. That's the reason why Hotez initiated this whole exchange-- he's a small time player who needs attention from the big boys to get noticed.
Since Rogan doesn't use social media that often, he was hoping his tweet would just fly under the radar or be answered by a publicist, or perhaps a booking agent. He wasn't -- and probably will never be -- prepared to do a full debate with RFK.
Academics like Hotez (and the author of this damage control piece) have a somewhat warped view of the social order. They see it as a cathedral, when it's actually a bazaar. Lawyers, social media algorithms, and podcast hosts have a much easier time influencing public opinion than scientists if the people can relate to what they're saying.
Lets suppose a leader of a satanic cult debates you, is he giving you legitimacy because he has more followers?
Your local priest has more followers than the electrician, so. his approval more reliable?
Hotez IS seeking legitimacy from Rogan and DOES have a need to do so. That's why he appeared on his show and why he tweeted at him.
Understand how this game is played. The small player challenges the bigger player. When Popeye's came out with a chicken sandwich, they challenged Chick Fil-A, not the other way around.
Agree or not, eleven million people listen to Rogan's show because they see him as balanced, respectful, and inquisitive. The same is not true for Hotez.
This is just a fantasy - less than half of his viewers see him as balanced.
Millions follow McGregor and precisely because he is unbalanced. People follow pornstars and rappers too!
I follow Rogans show for entertainment. I check Daily mail to keep tabs on the mentally ill.
Just because someone clicked "follow" does not mean they respect you
> I am not debating from a satanic cult leader because I have no need to do so.
You would if satanists set up shop next door and start running workshops on how to break into houses and crusify your neighbours.
This is whats happening with antivaxers - they are attacking our safety and security. You cant just ignore them.
>Hotez refused, though he offered to engage Rogan — whose show he had appeared on before — one on one, a context in which Hotez was prepared to address Rogan’s misconceptions serially. Rogan treated that offer as an evasion, which led to Hotez being accosted at his home by a stranger demanding that he take the bait.
I agree with the sentiment that you don't engage with quacks. At some point, you are legitimizing their wild unsubstantiated claims when you engage with them. But I also think they need to be challenged as well so that they don't get to spread bullshit unchecked. Thats what Hotez was doing.
So, lets give Hotez some credit here, because he also offered to discuss Rogan's misconceptions. He just refused to 'debate' an unqualified, uncredentialed pseudo-'expert' who very likely wouldn't approach the debate in good faith. It would be giving that person a platform to throw around more misinformation and "their own research".
Also, Hotez reluctance to debate is validated by the absolute wackjobs that are coming out of the woodwork to harass him. Someone stalking him at his house? Being piled-on by Muskovites and Rogan fans, and anti-vax lunatics. Yea, really selling him on debating! I'm sure that group of people will be swayed by verifiable scientific evidence.
Do one better, wrestle him, do a boxing match!
World's best software engineer will loose a debater about software to a world champion debater.
The Quack is a proffeshional, he makes a living off public speaking, misleading and debating.
The expectation that anyone can debate and win on the basis of knowldge is childish.
Doubtless it's all a matter of perspective, as to who's the idiot, but if you apply Twain's advice whenever you encounter unreasonable resistance you can nearly always save yourself a lot of energy.