2 ms·

I'm not so sure that analogy holds. The problem is that it presumes the skeptic of the heliocentric model has significant followers and that there is any point

by Canada 7y ago

I'm not so sure that analogy holds. The problem is that it presumes the skeptic of the heliocentric model has significant followers and that there is any point in changing their minds. There is no point in the astronomer debating that skeptic because convincing his followers won't change anything. The astronomer has nothing to win. A significant segment of the public does not believe AGW is actually happening so there's benefit to be had in having the debate: The skeptics followers will watch it. Refusing to do it just allows the skeptics followers to remain within that bubble completely unchecked.

yongjik 7y ago
Sadly, winning a debate has more to do with charisma than sound logic and evidences. Trump had multiple debates on TV, he "won" them well enough to be elected, and he thinks global warming is a Chinese hoax. Scientists, being scientists, are fundamentally trained to communicate to fellow scientists with basic scientific competency and no desire to twist every word out of context. They aren't the best TV debators. You wouldn't give members of the Manhattan project gladiator swords and march them into Colosseum - what would you expect?