4 ms·

Debates are contests of speaking ability and skill in convincing. It's possible and expected for a skilled debater to win with a proposition that's clearly untr

Debates are contests of speaking ability and skill in convincing. It's possible and expected for a skilled debater to win with a proposition that's clearly untrue. Debates are just absolutely the wrong tool for truth-discovery.

nabla9 3y ago
Adversarial collaboration is the way to solve disputes scientifically. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_collaboration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_collaboration
- b0sk 3y ago
  Not against gish-galloping. This is not a "scientific" dispute where there's 95% agreement and they disagree on the 5%. This is homeopathy cures cancer vs an oncologist.
- rhinoceraptor 3y ago
  That's not what a debate is. A debate is a contrived conversation format where presenting evidence and countering the evidence of your opponent isn't really possible in real time.
brodouevencode 3y ago
Scientists frequently engage in scientific debate with each other.
- rqtwteye 3y ago
  It's fine if done in good faith. Debating somebody like Kennedy is a losing proposition. He will bury you with a ton of nonsense that "feels right". Refuting every point takes way more time than you have in a debate.
- athenot 3y ago
  Productive scientific debating is usually done in writing, or over long periods of time, not in entertainment-driven TV shows. It's unfortunate both are called "debating" but mean something very different.
  - badlucklottery 3y ago
    This. For example, most journals will specifically select peer reviewers who have published papers with conclusions/results counter to the one being reviewed. And those reviewers will take a run at you. Journals do this because printing papers that need a retraction isn't in their best interest. If they can, they'll shoot down a paper before it gets that far.
- mikeyouse 3y ago
  Sure - but do they engage in scientific debates with non-experts? There just isn't any value with that. Imagine someone like Paul Graham "Debating" RFK on whether Wifi causes "the blood brain barrier to open and allow toxins in" -- the level of misunderstanding you'd have to correct and education you would have to provide just to get them to a point to understand how WiFi works and how non-ionizing radiation propagates is just massive. The base of their understanding is the essence of "Not even wrong".
- goodpoint 3y ago
  Being on Joe Rogan's show has nothing to do with a scientific debate. The host and the platform prevent meaningful and deep communication. That requires writing a book or at least a paper. An online "debate" on youtube is just a ton of shocking oversimplification, if not dishonest misleading stuff.
  - moate 3y ago
    It's also bad for accurate science. Unless you have a team of researchers that can feed 100% accurate data talking points to you in real time, someone is going to make a "mistaken" claim at some point that could lead the debate to an entirely inaccurate direction. Improv and theater training would be better than scientific understanding in this arena, so why is one group trying to pretend it isn't?
troyvit 3y ago
Debates can also be structured enough that if the debaters follow the rules it becomes possible to see clear winners, or at least surface important ideas for people to chew on. The James Baldwin / William Buckley debate is a good example[1]. Somehow though I don't think you'd get that kind of structure in a Joe Rogan podcast. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Tek9h3a5wQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Tek9h3a5wQ

nabla9 3y ago

Adversarial collaboration is the way to solve disputes scientifically. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_collaboration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_collaboration

b0sk 3y ago
Not against gish-galloping. This is not a "scientific" dispute where there's 95% agreement and they disagree on the 5%. This is homeopathy cures cancer vs an oncologist.
rhinoceraptor 3y ago
That's not what a debate is. A debate is a contrived conversation format where presenting evidence and countering the evidence of your opponent isn't really possible in real time.

brodouevencode 3y ago

Scientists frequently engage in scientific debate with each other.

rqtwteye 3y ago
It's fine if done in good faith. Debating somebody like Kennedy is a losing proposition. He will bury you with a ton of nonsense that "feels right". Refuting every point takes way more time than you have in a debate.
athenot 3y ago
Productive scientific debating is usually done in writing, or over long periods of time, not in entertainment-driven TV shows. It's unfortunate both are called "debating" but mean something very different.
- badlucklottery 3y ago
  This. For example, most journals will specifically select peer reviewers who have published papers with conclusions/results counter to the one being reviewed. And those reviewers will take a run at you. Journals do this because printing papers that need a retraction isn't in their best interest. If they can, they'll shoot down a paper before it gets that far.
mikeyouse 3y ago
Sure - but do they engage in scientific debates with non-experts? There just isn't any value with that. Imagine someone like Paul Graham "Debating" RFK on whether Wifi causes "the blood brain barrier to open and allow toxins in" -- the level of misunderstanding you'd have to correct and education you would have to provide just to get them to a point to understand how WiFi works and how non-ionizing radiation propagates is just massive. The base of their understanding is the essence of "Not even wrong".
goodpoint 3y ago
Being on Joe Rogan's show has nothing to do with a scientific debate. The host and the platform prevent meaningful and deep communication. That requires writing a book or at least a paper. An online "debate" on youtube is just a ton of shocking oversimplification, if not dishonest misleading stuff.
- moate 3y ago
  It's also bad for accurate science. Unless you have a team of researchers that can feed 100% accurate data talking points to you in real time, someone is going to make a "mistaken" claim at some point that could lead the debate to an entirely inaccurate direction. Improv and theater training would be better than scientific understanding in this arena, so why is one group trying to pretend it isn't?

troyvit 3y ago

Debates can also be structured enough that if the debaters follow the rules it becomes possible to see clear winners, or at least surface important ideas for people to chew on. The James Baldwin / William Buckley debate is a good example[1]. Somehow though I don't think you'd get that kind of structure in a Joe Rogan podcast. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Tek9h3a5wQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Tek9h3a5wQ