Debate Is Not the Way to Do Science

Because debate is all about winning an argument toward a preconceived conclusion, not trying to identify truth.

Vox, 22 Jun 2023: Joe Rogan wants a “debate” on vaccine science. Don’t give it to him., subtitled “How to have better conversations about contentious scientific subjects.”

Last week, Joe Rogan aired a conversation on his podcast with longtime vaccine misinformation spreader and current not-inconsequential Joe Biden primary challenger Robert F. Kennedy Jr. According to an article in Vice, the three-hour episode was “an orgy of unchecked vaccine misinformation, some conspiracy-mongering about 5G technology and wifi, and, of course, Rogan once again praising ivermectin, an ineffective faux COVID treatment.”

On Twitter, Peter Hotez, a vaccine scientist at Baylor College of Medicine, criticized the conversation. In response, Rogan invited Hotez to debate vaccines with Kennedy on his show. Hotez declined, instead offering Rogan a one-on-one conversation. Rogan insisted on a debate, and Elon Musk popped into his replies with a jab at Hotez, implying Hotez was afraid of the debate, afraid of being proven wrong. On Sunday, two people, evidently spurred into action by the kerfuffle online, harassed Hotez at his Houston home.

Still, Hotez refused to debate RFK. Good.

“Hotez made the right choice,” wrote epidemiologist Katelyn Jetelina and physician Kristen Panthagani Tuesday in an issue of Jetelina’s newsletter.

It’s tempting to engage in debates with people who disagree on matters of fact, said Jetelina — but what results can look more like a UFC match than a forum for learning, and can actually result in further entrenching polarized perspectives.

Here’s why debates are actually a bad forum for discussing contentious scientific issues — and what works better.

The article goes on with ideas about how better to productively engage with scientific critics.

\

LA Times, 22 Jun 2023: Column: Sorry, Joe Rogan: Scientists should never ‘debate’ anti-vaccine quacks. Here’s why

There are many reasons why serious scientists should reject these invitations. One is that it gives liars and deceivers legitimacy. “You should never equate, morally or practically, true science and pseudoscience or quackery,” says John P. Moore, professor of microbiology and immunology at Weill Cornell Medical College. “By just appearing with these people, you give them a stature that implies they’re equivalent, and they’re not.”

\

Washington Post, Paul Waldman, 20 Jun 2023: Opinion | Joe Rogan wants a ‘debate’ on vaccines. That’s just the problem.

Like many a crank before him, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. decided that the best way to promote his ideas — mostly opposition to vaccines, with a smattering of various conspiracy theories thrown in — would be to run for president. Because he is doing that, and because of the family name he bears, he is able to get attention that is no doubt the envy of crackpots everywhere. At the moment, that means the country’s most widely heard podcaster (Joe Rogan) and the world’s richest man (Elon Musk) are not only rallying to Kennedy’s side but also challenging a renowned virologist and vaccine developer to debate Kennedy on Rogan’s program.

The virologist, Peter Hotez, has not taken the bait, for which he is being assaulted on right-wing media. But the whole episode illustrates something depressing: Democratic debate and deliberation were supposed to be how we test ideas, reveal the truth and come to collective decisions. Yet today, “debate” is far more likely to make us dumber than to help us plot a course for the future. When was the last time you heard (or read) two people debate an issue from opposing sides and felt enlightened when it was over?

And

Hotez’s logic is simple and absolutely correct: When an expert “debates” a crank, nothing is accomplished except elevating the crank to a status he doesn’t deserve. Few if any will be persuaded of the truth, and the result will be a less informed public. Conspiratorial beliefs such as those Kennedy advocates might be among the hardest to dislodge by reasoned argument; to be a conspiracy theorist is to commit yourself to a project of ignoring reason and facts in favor of an endless search for obscure connections, hidden agendas and secret cabals. No one erects stouter walls against the possibility of being persuaded than the conspiracy theorist.

\\

Debates play to crowds with preconceived notions. My response to Rogan would be to hand him a thick textbook about virology, say this one, or about vaccines, say this one, and ask him to submit his refutations of either text, before debating. He cannot do it. He has no idea what he’s talking about.

This incident recalls why most scientists refuse to debate critics, especially creationists. Though Michael Shermer is an exception, as explained in this review of his book WHY DARWIN MATTERS.

There are so, so many vast and complex things that scientists have learned over the past few centuries, that critics think they can dismiss, without evidence, based on the prejudices of their social bubble. Their arguments are rooted, I think, in the biases of primitive human existence, as I’ve discussed in recent posts.