4 ms·

The thing that Rogan/Musk/etc don't seem to realize is that scientists have debates literally every day, it's just that we do it in print, very slowly. There's

The thing that Rogan/Musk/etc don't seem to realize is that scientists have debates literally every day, it's just that we do it in print, very slowly. There's just no way you could possibly sit around and think about what the data presented mean in real time.

revelio 3y ago
Hotez doesn't do that. He has a long track record of saying things, on video, that contradict prior things he's said, also on video. The reason he won't debate anyone is that he'd immediately be hung by his own words. Here's a video showing Hotez in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj6-QDVYbv8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj6-QDVYbv8
- ahahahahah 3y ago
  Is that honestly your strongest evidence? I'll save everyone the time, it's nothing spliced in with a bunch of super annoying unrelated clips, sound effects, and visual clutter.
dekhn 3y ago
Rogan and Musk could write a scientific paper expressing their beliefs- even funding scientists to carry out experiments possibly supporting their positions. I think it would be quite interesting to see a Rogan, Musk, et al paper.
- equalsione 3y ago
  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65981876 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65981876 This Elon Musk?
  - dekhn 3y ago
    Yep. I think it would expose just how weak his thinking is, if he were to write a scientific paper (even an opinion paper). But musk doesn't play in the science publication sphere. To him, that sphere is basically just a corrupt system for perpetuating power structures and it's easier for him to talk shit on twitter,.
dmix 3y ago
So it's impossible or pointless to convince/communicate ideas without two subject matter experts involved? And we're supposed to trust politicians, policy makers, Youtube/Reddit moderators, etc to be able to decipher this stuff when enforcing their interpretations? Just "trust the science"?
- kgwxd 3y ago
  I think their point was that you absolutely should not trust politicians, policy makers, Youtube/Reddit moderators, etc. They're the ones using phrases like "trust the science". Fauci is a scientist but he's also a a part of the government and maybe even had something to hide. The stupid things he said on a highly public stage shouldn't be taken with the same level of consideration as things said in long-form scientific discussions. If he used that phrase in one of those, he'd have been immediately called out. The fact he was willing to use that phrase so often should bring into question how rigorous his long-form scientific discussions actually were, but those discussions are done the way they are because it helps minimize people saying stupid, emotionally driven, things and/or distracting from the truth everyone in the conversation is supposed to be seeking.
IceHegel 3y ago
This is probably true on a micro level but not on a macro level. There are probably a lot of things worth debating in the world of climate science, but the number of people who are allowed to even ask questions, is tiny. Basically, the only people with clearance to debate climate science are climate scientists, which is, all things considered, a pretty small marketplace. Moreover, scientists debating amongst themselves is one thing for chemistry and quite another for Psychology or Anthropology or Public Health - fields that borrow credibility from the self-evident power of the scientific method to do history or philosophy or policy making.
- badlucklottery 3y ago
  > the only people with clearance to debate climate science are climate scientists, which is, all things considered, a pretty small marketplace. Like most highly specialized fields, getting 100% current on the state of the art will likely take full immersion in the field and years of dedicated study. You just don't get a lot of people who spend years doing the work of becoming a PhD and don't actually, you know, get their PhD. I'm sure they exist but they're understandably going to be super rare compared to jokers who read a couple papers (if that) and decide they know "the truth".
  - IceHegel 3y ago
    A PhD, like all degrees, is just a piece of paper. This piece of paper doesn't mean you'll say true things or do good science, it's just a shortcut way of letting people know "I've spent a lot of time on this." As for who know best, I'm always skeptical of whoever is less curious, and that usually depends more on the person than the education level.
LanceH 3y ago
Rogan seems to actively listen when he has people on. A discussion format is what he would like to do. Nothing seems out of sort for this. He could be completely wrong on something and invite someone with conflicting views and give them a platform for hours. He doesn't trample all over them in the moment like so many others. I would make the distinction that he is perhaps bad at science, rather than anti-science. He just wants to discuss it, which is the format he prefers to work in. As for a debate not showing the truth, I'll agree. However, I'll also say that there has been a lot of confindence lost in some authority figures who stated things as fact when they should have been using weaker statements like, "we believe" or "we don't know, but do this just in case". Sure, it could be said it was politicians making these statements, but they were buttressed by fame seeking scientists. (on the topic of covid) The government and their scientists never admit they were wrong, everything is always stated as fact. Best example of the this is the food pyramid. They just roll out a new one and pretend the previous one never existed. I don't know where we stand right now with regard to either the food pyramid or covid, except to get the new boosters as they come out on the latter.
Pxtl 3y ago
That's the point. In print you can cite your sources. Meanwhile, in verbal debates you can make up whatever you like and things happen to fast for anything to be verified. A study in Berkeley where they followed university-level debate-teams in 1996 by Liebowitz and Gagne[1] found that about 63% of the verifiable "facts" used in this format were inaccurate, generally trivially so but nobody noticed. Likewise, it's easier to deceive somebody in verbal formats than in print. Canadian pollster Frank Graves of Ekos Research tracks misinformation with a "misinformation index" where he polls people about provably false statements. People who primarily consume audio or video news, rather than reading it, across all political lines, reliably score lower on this "misinformation index".[2] [1][2] I'm making this stuff up and if this was a verbal debate you probably wouldn't know that, whereas in this format you can trivially Google these things. Graves does write about Misinformation Index but has not done anything about print vs audio.

revelio 3y ago

Hotez doesn't do that. He has a long track record of saying things, on video, that contradict prior things he's said, also on video. The reason he won't debate anyone is that he'd immediately be hung by his own words. Here's a video showing Hotez in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj6-QDVYbv8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj6-QDVYbv8

ahahahahah 3y ago
Is that honestly your strongest evidence? I'll save everyone the time, it's nothing spliced in with a bunch of super annoying unrelated clips, sound effects, and visual clutter.

dekhn 3y ago

Rogan and Musk could write a scientific paper expressing their beliefs- even funding scientists to carry out experiments possibly supporting their positions. I think it would be quite interesting to see a Rogan, Musk, et al paper.

equalsione 3y ago
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65981876 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65981876 This Elon Musk?
- dekhn 3y ago
  Yep. I think it would expose just how weak his thinking is, if he were to write a scientific paper (even an opinion paper). But musk doesn't play in the science publication sphere. To him, that sphere is basically just a corrupt system for perpetuating power structures and it's easier for him to talk shit on twitter,.

dmix 3y ago

So it's impossible or pointless to convince/communicate ideas without two subject matter experts involved? And we're supposed to trust politicians, policy makers, Youtube/Reddit moderators, etc to be able to decipher this stuff when enforcing their interpretations? Just "trust the science"?

kgwxd 3y ago
I think their point was that you absolutely should not trust politicians, policy makers, Youtube/Reddit moderators, etc. They're the ones using phrases like "trust the science". Fauci is a scientist but he's also a a part of the government and maybe even had something to hide. The stupid things he said on a highly public stage shouldn't be taken with the same level of consideration as things said in long-form scientific discussions. If he used that phrase in one of those, he'd have been immediately called out. The fact he was willing to use that phrase so often should bring into question how rigorous his long-form scientific discussions actually were, but those discussions are done the way they are because it helps minimize people saying stupid, emotionally driven, things and/or distracting from the truth everyone in the conversation is supposed to be seeking.

IceHegel 3y ago

This is probably true on a micro level but not on a macro level. There are probably a lot of things worth debating in the world of climate science, but the number of people who are allowed to even ask questions, is tiny. Basically, the only people with clearance to debate climate science are climate scientists, which is, all things considered, a pretty small marketplace. Moreover, scientists debating amongst themselves is one thing for chemistry and quite another for Psychology or Anthropology or Public Health - fields that borrow credibility from the self-evident power of the scientific method to do history or philosophy or policy making.

badlucklottery 3y ago
> the only people with clearance to debate climate science are climate scientists, which is, all things considered, a pretty small marketplace. Like most highly specialized fields, getting 100% current on the state of the art will likely take full immersion in the field and years of dedicated study. You just don't get a lot of people who spend years doing the work of becoming a PhD and don't actually, you know, get their PhD. I'm sure they exist but they're understandably going to be super rare compared to jokers who read a couple papers (if that) and decide they know "the truth".
- IceHegel 3y ago
  A PhD, like all degrees, is just a piece of paper. This piece of paper doesn't mean you'll say true things or do good science, it's just a shortcut way of letting people know "I've spent a lot of time on this." As for who know best, I'm always skeptical of whoever is less curious, and that usually depends more on the person than the education level.

LanceH 3y ago

Rogan seems to actively listen when he has people on. A discussion format is what he would like to do. Nothing seems out of sort for this. He could be completely wrong on something and invite someone with conflicting views and give them a platform for hours. He doesn't trample all over them in the moment like so many others. I would make the distinction that he is perhaps bad at science, rather than anti-science. He just wants to discuss it, which is the format he prefers to work in. As for a debate not showing the truth, I'll agree. However, I'll also say that there has been a lot of confindence lost in some authority figures who stated things as fact when they should have been using weaker statements like, "we believe" or "we don't know, but do this just in case". Sure, it could be said it was politicians making these statements, but they were buttressed by fame seeking scientists. (on the topic of covid) The government and their scientists never admit they were wrong, everything is always stated as fact. Best example of the this is the food pyramid. They just roll out a new one and pretend the previous one never existed. I don't know where we stand right now with regard to either the food pyramid or covid, except to get the new boosters as they come out on the latter.

Pxtl 3y ago

That's the point. In print you can cite your sources. Meanwhile, in verbal debates you can make up whatever you like and things happen to fast for anything to be verified. A study in Berkeley where they followed university-level debate-teams in 1996 by Liebowitz and Gagne[1] found that about 63% of the verifiable "facts" used in this format were inaccurate, generally trivially so but nobody noticed. Likewise, it's easier to deceive somebody in verbal formats than in print. Canadian pollster Frank Graves of Ekos Research tracks misinformation with a "misinformation index" where he polls people about provably false statements. People who primarily consume audio or video news, rather than reading it, across all political lines, reliably score lower on this "misinformation index".[2] [1][2] I'm making this stuff up and if this was a verbal debate you probably wouldn't know that, whereas in this format you can trivially Google these things. Graves does write about Misinformation Index but has not done anything about print vs audio.