2 ms·

I think that if the actual debate was done in public, it might work. Two scientists actually arguing with each other in public hasn't been a thing, and maybe it

I think that if the actual debate was done in public, it might work. Two scientists actually arguing with each other in public hasn't been a thing, and maybe it should? The instinct has always been to hush up any disagreements and present a united front on all matters that the public are interested in, even if this means that the "front" then has to change later as better evidence emerges. But that instinct doesn't actually help - the change in position is seen as "not knowing what they're doing", or "can't get it right". The question is asked "why should we believe you now when this is different from what you said last time?". Actually having the fight in public would at least show that science is an ongoing discussion and exploration, rather than a fixed set of answers. Of course people will pick sides and favour one argument over another, but they do that anyway. I think the age of allowing scientists to quietly conduct research in academic journals or conferences is over.

cousin_it 5y ago
Most of these controversial questions contain more nuance than can be covered in a debate, though. You could say "simplify them", but simplifying a scientific topic is very difficult and time-consuming work at which scientists themselves often fail. And it's comparatively very easy to present an inaccurate simplified version, to make your opponent look wronger than they actually are. My view on this is kind of pessimistic. The mindset of science, based on curiosity, feels to me like a small boat which can only sail when seas are relatively calm. But politics is a storm. The waves are too tall. Maybe the boat just cannot sail in this storm.
- marcus_holmes 5y ago
  Yeah, but seeing how complex and involved the questions actually are would help with the "I understand this after one YouTube video better than people who've spent their lives studying it" problem. Not simplifying it would make for boring viewing, but it would ram home the point that this isn't as simple as it seems.
cblconfederate 5y ago
i like the intelligence^2 public debates, but note that the audience doesnt send likes and comments while it s happening

cousin_it 5y ago

Most of these controversial questions contain more nuance than can be covered in a debate, though. You could say "simplify them", but simplifying a scientific topic is very difficult and time-consuming work at which scientists themselves often fail. And it's comparatively very easy to present an inaccurate simplified version, to make your opponent look wronger than they actually are. My view on this is kind of pessimistic. The mindset of science, based on curiosity, feels to me like a small boat which can only sail when seas are relatively calm. But politics is a storm. The waves are too tall. Maybe the boat just cannot sail in this storm.

marcus_holmes 5y ago
Yeah, but seeing how complex and involved the questions actually are would help with the "I understand this after one YouTube video better than people who've spent their lives studying it" problem. Not simplifying it would make for boring viewing, but it would ram home the point that this isn't as simple as it seems.

cblconfederate 5y ago

i like the intelligence^2 public debates, but note that the audience doesnt send likes and comments while it s happening