4 ms·

Here is one idea. Let someone host a debate that pitches scientists on either camp against each other. Let them fight it out in public. It is quite useless fo

by forcry 5y ago

Here is one idea. Let someone host a debate that pitches scientists on either camp against each other. Let them fight it out in public. It is quite useless for the public to divide themselves depending on what version of "science" they want to believe in.

dennis_moore 5y ago
https://munkdebates.com/podcast/covid-19-origins https://munkdebates.com/podcast/covid-19-origins
- forcry 5y ago
  Thanks. But this was mostly useless. This was mostly two persons citing their reasons, and there was not enough picking apart of the other side's argument, And to me, the lab leak scientist's arguments were a lot stronger where the other one looked a lot hand waving and speculation to me. Don't know, maybe I was hoping there would be really strong arguments from the proponent of natural origins.
  - dennis_moore 5y ago
    I agree. I heard good arguments in support of a lab leak origin but almost none from the other side. In fact, the latter just seemed to agree with most of the things the former was saying.
  - jfengel 5y ago
    That seems like the problem with your idea to me. The winner of the debate will be the stronger debater. I can't think of a time when a public debate actually ended up convincing anybody. Presidential debates are, at best, a chance for one candidate to screw up. I don't think anybody came out of the Bill Nye debate against Ken Ham believing anything different than they came in with. Debate is a poor format for teaching. Material goes past you at the debater's pace, not yours. If you actually wanted to know the answer, you'd read written material. Or interview the experts yourself, so that your questions can be answered, not the ones that the other debater finds most pertinent to convincing people. I have little faith in the ability of the vast majority of people to form sound opinions on anything. Even the ones who come to the right answer will mostly be responding to the consensus that happens to coincide with their ideology, rather than sound ground-up reasoning. In this case, any rational basis for this is going to depend on knowing a ton about virus evolution AND about common laboratory practices. It's going to take more than an hour's worth of lecture to teach you what you need to know just to judge a sound argument. Practically all people would come out of that judging the one using the best tactics, not the soundest arguments. With a heavy thumb on the side of whoever they were predisposed to agree with in the first place. If you want to hear a real discussion of the subject, you'll have to go to a virology conference. And you probably won't understand a word of it. Nor would I.

by forcry 5y ago

dennis_moore 5y ago

https://munkdebates.com/podcast/covid-19-origins https://munkdebates.com/podcast/covid-19-origins

forcry 5y ago
Thanks. But this was mostly useless. This was mostly two persons citing their reasons, and there was not enough picking apart of the other side's argument, And to me, the lab leak scientist's arguments were a lot stronger where the other one looked a lot hand waving and speculation to me. Don't know, maybe I was hoping there would be really strong arguments from the proponent of natural origins.
- dennis_moore 5y ago
  I agree. I heard good arguments in support of a lab leak origin but almost none from the other side. In fact, the latter just seemed to agree with most of the things the former was saying.
- jfengel 5y ago
  That seems like the problem with your idea to me. The winner of the debate will be the stronger debater. I can't think of a time when a public debate actually ended up convincing anybody. Presidential debates are, at best, a chance for one candidate to screw up. I don't think anybody came out of the Bill Nye debate against Ken Ham believing anything different than they came in with. Debate is a poor format for teaching. Material goes past you at the debater's pace, not yours. If you actually wanted to know the answer, you'd read written material. Or interview the experts yourself, so that your questions can be answered, not the ones that the other debater finds most pertinent to convincing people. I have little faith in the ability of the vast majority of people to form sound opinions on anything. Even the ones who come to the right answer will mostly be responding to the consensus that happens to coincide with their ideology, rather than sound ground-up reasoning. In this case, any rational basis for this is going to depend on knowing a ton about virus evolution AND about common laboratory practices. It's going to take more than an hour's worth of lecture to teach you what you need to know just to judge a sound argument. Practically all people would come out of that judging the one using the best tactics, not the soundest arguments. With a heavy thumb on the side of whoever they were predisposed to agree with in the first place. If you want to hear a real discussion of the subject, you'll have to go to a virology conference. And you probably won't understand a word of it. Nor would I.