6 ms·

If the view is easy to persuasively debunk, why not? Will use a smidgeon of an expert's time and help a lot of people. If the view is not easy to debunk, mayb

by yters 6y ago

If the view is easy to persuasively debunk, why not? Will use a smidgeon of an expert's time and help a lot of people. If the view is not easy to debunk, maybe it is worth an extended discussion? Seems win win either way.

joshuamorton 6y ago
This argument has been had many times. It's easy to pervasively debunk flat eartherism, or anti-vax conspiracies. Yet those ideas continue to be pervasive in particular subpopulations. When people want to hold a view, out-sciencing them won't work. Ultimately > Will use a smidgeon of an expert's time and help a lot of people. Yes, if you have to spend all your time responding to cranks, you'll have no time to be productive, and you'll embolden the cranks. Bullshit is produce to spew than to refute, so trying to counter bullshit with intellectual honesty is a loosing proposition. At some point you have to set a bar for bullshit, and ignore anything below the bar. The bullshit-artists call that "censorship", because at that point they've lost and the only way they can continue to spew bullshit is to find popular support with contrarians or free-speech absolutists who don't actually have a deep knowledge or care about scientific discourse.
- yters 6y ago
  What if the cranks gain power because you censor them?
ben_w 6y ago
Have you ever tried arguing with someone who is not only incorrect about literally every claim they’ve made, but whose grasp is so bad that their claims are mostly incoherent if you know what the words mean? I once made the mistake of “debating” with a fundamentalist young-Earth Baptist Creationist who set up a microphone and speaker in the middle of Cambridge some time around 2008. He said too many wrong things too quickly for me to actually counter them all. One that still sticks in my mind was him saying “Ladies and Gentlemen, I have found the kernel of this man’s beliefs. Either you believe in eternal energy or eternal God.” - literally every part of that sentence is false, but the dumb was too shocking for me to respond to. Given what I know now, I think he technically blasphemed against his own faith multiple times… but I don’t think I convinced anyone who was on the fence.
- yters 6y ago
  It's worthwhile to develop both rhetoric and logic. Such people will not go away because you don't like them, and certainly not if you censor them. How do you think the Protestant reformation happened in the first place?
  - eesmith 6y ago
    Please tell me how not being able to publish YEC papers in the journal "Nature" can be considered censorship.
    - yters 6y ago
      To publish or not should be based on cogency of argument, not whether the subject matter is popular or not. So if YEC can make a good argument, then they should have the opportunity to publish.
      - eesmith 6y ago
        Exactly! So if YECs don't make a good argument, they shouldn't be accepted for publication in a scientific journal, and therefore it's not censorship, right?
        yters 6y ago
        Yes, if that is the reason, but not if their work is rejected merely if it is YEC. I recently saw a paper get accepted by a biology journal, and then rejected because the editors found out the authors were associated with intelligent design. That is inappropriate in my opinion.
        eesmith 6y ago
        The ones I've heard about ("accepted by a biology journal, and then rejected because the editors found out") are usually due to subterfuge or some undermining of the system. Eg, using terms that obfuscate the YEC aspects of the paper, which isn't obvious enough for the reviewers to understand what it actually means. There are also journals which accept anything, with little or no review (eg, some conference papers) and societies which allow their members to publish anything, and use post-publication review to retract papers. Or sometimes someone with YEC beliefs gets editorial control and start green-lighting YEC papers not on merit but because of those personal beliefs. Can you point to the incident? Do you think it was rejected merely because it was YEC? Or because the evidence presented didn't actually support a YEC claim?
eesmith 6y ago
My comment gave the reasons for why not, so I don't know what more you want. And you didn't answer my questions: Where should a YEC get to publish their papers? If the paper isn't accepted (because it's contrary to all evidence and has no strong evidence to support it), do you call that decision "censorship"? In 100 years do you expect that we might discover the YECs are right? Experience with YECs, flat-earthers, and the like show that it's far more than "a smidgen of an expert's time". As you yourself pointed out, it requires learning a different set of rhetorical skills than are needed for a scientific paper. And that takes a lot of time. (And it seems you have no experience in dealing with crackpots to know this.) A scientist who enters a "debate" with a creationist, but who is not trained in the specific rhetorical techniques (eg. "Gish gallop", as another commenter pointed out) is going to get trounced - because scientists aren't trained in dealing with charlatans, and rhetorical style can trump competence. As a result, charlatans gain fame for being able to out-debate a scientist. I'll stress this point, the point of these crackpot publications and "debates" is NOT to advance science but to establish credentials as being a viable alternative. So, will you answer my questions now?
- yters 6y ago
  If a YEC can assemble a good argument that fits the journal's standards, they should be able to publish. Seems simple.
  - eesmith 6y ago
    It appears you, like me, disagree with twblalock's broad statement "Science is better served when such papers are published, and then are debunked using scientific standards of inquiry." and have the position more like "only good arguments warrant publication". I'm perfectly fine with that latter viewpoint and don't see where we have any disagreement.
    - yters 6y ago
      Perhaps, although I see people claim the latter when it seems they are more rejecting a position or conclusion merely because they already disagree with it, or are worried about implications of the argument.

by yters 6y ago

joshuamorton 6y ago

This argument has been had many times. It's easy to pervasively debunk flat eartherism, or anti-vax conspiracies. Yet those ideas continue to be pervasive in particular subpopulations. When people want to hold a view, out-sciencing them won't work. Ultimately > Will use a smidgeon of an expert's time and help a lot of people. Yes, if you have to spend all your time responding to cranks, you'll have no time to be productive, and you'll embolden the cranks. Bullshit is produce to spew than to refute, so trying to counter bullshit with intellectual honesty is a loosing proposition. At some point you have to set a bar for bullshit, and ignore anything below the bar. The bullshit-artists call that "censorship", because at that point they've lost and the only way they can continue to spew bullshit is to find popular support with contrarians or free-speech absolutists who don't actually have a deep knowledge or care about scientific discourse.

yters 6y ago
What if the cranks gain power because you censor them?

ben_w 6y ago

Have you ever tried arguing with someone who is not only incorrect about literally every claim they’ve made, but whose grasp is so bad that their claims are mostly incoherent if you know what the words mean? I once made the mistake of “debating” with a fundamentalist young-Earth Baptist Creationist who set up a microphone and speaker in the middle of Cambridge some time around 2008. He said too many wrong things too quickly for me to actually counter them all. One that still sticks in my mind was him saying “Ladies and Gentlemen, I have found the kernel of this man’s beliefs. Either you believe in eternal energy or eternal God.” - literally every part of that sentence is false, but the dumb was too shocking for me to respond to. Given what I know now, I think he technically blasphemed against his own faith multiple times… but I don’t think I convinced anyone who was on the fence.

yters 6y ago
It's worthwhile to develop both rhetoric and logic. Such people will not go away because you don't like them, and certainly not if you censor them. How do you think the Protestant reformation happened in the first place?
- eesmith 6y ago
  Please tell me how not being able to publish YEC papers in the journal "Nature" can be considered censorship.
  - yters 6y ago
    To publish or not should be based on cogency of argument, not whether the subject matter is popular or not. So if YEC can make a good argument, then they should have the opportunity to publish.
    - eesmith 6y ago
      Exactly! So if YECs don't make a good argument, they shouldn't be accepted for publication in a scientific journal, and therefore it's not censorship, right?
      - yters 6y ago
        Yes, if that is the reason, but not if their work is rejected merely if it is YEC. I recently saw a paper get accepted by a biology journal, and then rejected because the editors found out the authors were associated with intelligent design. That is inappropriate in my opinion.
        eesmith 6y ago
        The ones I've heard about ("accepted by a biology journal, and then rejected because the editors found out") are usually due to subterfuge or some undermining of the system. Eg, using terms that obfuscate the YEC aspects of the paper, which isn't obvious enough for the reviewers to understand what it actually means. There are also journals which accept anything, with little or no review (eg, some conference papers) and societies which allow their members to publish anything, and use post-publication review to retract papers. Or sometimes someone with YEC beliefs gets editorial control and start green-lighting YEC papers not on merit but because of those personal beliefs. Can you point to the incident? Do you think it was rejected merely because it was YEC? Or because the evidence presented didn't actually support a YEC claim?

eesmith 6y ago

My comment gave the reasons for why not, so I don't know what more you want. And you didn't answer my questions: Where should a YEC get to publish their papers? If the paper isn't accepted (because it's contrary to all evidence and has no strong evidence to support it), do you call that decision "censorship"? In 100 years do you expect that we might discover the YECs are right? Experience with YECs, flat-earthers, and the like show that it's far more than "a smidgen of an expert's time". As you yourself pointed out, it requires learning a different set of rhetorical skills than are needed for a scientific paper. And that takes a lot of time. (And it seems you have no experience in dealing with crackpots to know this.) A scientist who enters a "debate" with a creationist, but who is not trained in the specific rhetorical techniques (eg. "Gish gallop", as another commenter pointed out) is going to get trounced - because scientists aren't trained in dealing with charlatans, and rhetorical style can trump competence. As a result, charlatans gain fame for being able to out-debate a scientist. I'll stress this point, the point of these crackpot publications and "debates" is NOT to advance science but to establish credentials as being a viable alternative. So, will you answer my questions now?

yters 6y ago
If a YEC can assemble a good argument that fits the journal's standards, they should be able to publish. Seems simple.
- eesmith 6y ago
  It appears you, like me, disagree with twblalock's broad statement "Science is better served when such papers are published, and then are debunked using scientific standards of inquiry." and have the position more like "only good arguments warrant publication". I'm perfectly fine with that latter viewpoint and don't see where we have any disagreement.
  - yters 6y ago
    Perhaps, although I see people claim the latter when it seems they are more rejecting a position or conclusion merely because they already disagree with it, or are worried about implications of the argument.