Stop Debating
Jae's Perspective
A while ago I wrote a piece on stop debunking.
The point of the post was to call to attention the futility of debunking online. I still stand by the majority of my original commentary, but I realize there is an appropriate place for debunking.
Debunking can be entertaining and helpful on occasion, but it should not make up the majority of someone’s content.
The content of science communicators should be primarily focused on educational content and clearing up misconceptions before they arise.
Educational infographics or videos on platforms like Instagram or Tik Tok can definitely be effective compared to grumpy academics on Twitter.
Another reason I stress educational content rather than debunking is because of the intentions of the person you’re debunking.
Many of these individuals are financially motivated, others are ideologically driven, and only a few will genuinely be open to criticism. Sometimes, they might even ask you to debate them.
Debating 101
Once upon a time, I was a part of the debate team. This was during my high school years and some of college.
Formal debate is no joke it requires constant practice, research, organization, and professional presentation. You pretty much win from rhetorical traps, fallacies, and persuasion. Formal debate required moderation, a clear setup, and a score (someone has to win).
Formal debate is not like Socrates asking questions to gain knowledge and seek clarity. Debate is more so aimed at destroying your opposition and winning, at least that was my experience.
But is that approach appropriate for science?
Scientific Debate
Science is unique in its endeavors, method, and process. To state plainly science produces knowledge and seeks approximate truth.
Does debate produce knowledge? Perhaps, if the aim of debate was to gain a better understanding of the subject matter.
However, we see numerous instances of public debate pertaining to science that does not produce much knowledge or is aimed at seeking the truth.
Charlatans love to call evidence and science based people out for a debate. Psuedoscientist, charlatans, and conspiracy theorist use public debate formats to try to legitimize their worldview.
When people do not take them up on these debates they fain victimhood and claim people are too “scared” to debate them.
Even if a science based individual chooses to debate the charlatan, the debate most likely will not be structured and the charlatan will use tactics to play unfair (look into the gish gallop).
My Thoughts
I typically have 5 assholes a week slide into my DMs spewing nonsense related to covid. Some of these people are persistent and want to “debate” me.
These people are typically smaller accounts or private accounts, in my mind they want attention and to spread their beliefs to a wider audience (mine).
But what would I get from “debating” a stranger online either way?
They’re going to repeat the same falsehoods I heard a dozen times already, they’re not experts in the field, and we will most likely not come to a resolution as they want to debate me to be right.
I have had legitimate criticisms from people in the field, actual virologist and epidemiologist. This lead to a few corrections on my part, there was no huge “debate” which let me to reconsider my entire existence.
Scientific and personal progress can happen with these smaller conversations under certain norms which make it okay to be wrong and learn from being wrong.
Public debates between a scientist and charlatan might not lead to progress.