Dumbest idea ever: A vaccine "debate" between two lawyers, @AlanDersh and @RobertKennedyJr, neither of whom has significant scientific knowledge about vaccines, and one of whom is rabidly antivaccine. 1/https://www.ageofautism.com/2020/07/vaccine-debate-is-on-robert-f-kennedy-jr-vs-alan-dershowitz.html …
-
-
Basically, this tactic serves two purposes for the crank. First, it allows cranks to appear on the same stage/venue as seemingly an equal to an actual authority, thus giving the appearance that their viewpoint is worth serious consideration scientifically or based on evidence. 3/
Show this thread -
Second, since debates are won more on rhetoric and appearance rather than facts and science, "debates" allow the crank to Gish gallop and use deceptive rhetoric and logical fallacies to their hearts' content, thus giving them a good chance of appearing to win. 4/
Show this thread -
It's even worse when the person defending the scientific consensus is a nonscientist who is almost certainly unfamiliar with the common antivaccine talking points, tropes, pseudoscience, and distortions of evidence.
@AlanDersh really should have politely refused. 5/Show this thread -
Basically,
@AlanDersh is going to be used as a tool to spread antivaccine misinformation, pseudoscience, and disinformation. 6/6Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
David what do you think of less traditional debate formats - particularly cross examination? It seems to me at first blush to mitigate weaknesses you note
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Debate without strict rules of evidence is worthless partisan sport. It serves no purpose.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.