Actually, I know why. These invitations are intended to generate heat, not light. Most importantly, they are designed to put the advocate of quackery/pseudoscience side by side with a real expert, this giving the false impression that there is a genuine scientific controversy.10/
-
Show this thread
-
That's why cranks, quacks, and conspiracy theorists LOVE these sorts of "debates" and "forums." That's why I generally politely decline. 11/11
5 replies 11 retweets 219 likesShow this thread -
Forgot to add: It bothers me not one whit if a quack thinks I'm a "coward" or calls me such on Twitter. 12/12
10 replies 8 retweets 273 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @gorskon
If you know the literature and understand the counterpoints (of which you should have already scrutinized), you shouldn't be afraid of having a publication-based discussion on these topics. (or even ethical, for that matter).
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @adambow03688349 @gorskon
Debates aren’t won by facts or logic, and too many aren’t persuaded by either.The creationist Duane Gish was able to “win” debates because “his personal presentation that carried the day. In short, the audiences liked him”. The only way to win is to use their tactics against them
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @FrankDElia7 @gorskon
Debate the in the common parlance of podcasts is a glorified discussion, if you've entertained any of the recent ones. You using someone in the far past, who was debating philosophical points and first-principle subjects, is off the mark.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @adambow03688349 @gorskon
Your response is nonsensical drivel on so many levels. “In the far past” (which is off-point)Gish died in 2013, , the tactic he used is one that hacks like to use. Written debates are how serious scholars have always debated issues. Public debates are all heat and no light.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @FrankDElia7 @gorskon
It is also a display of the levels of scrutiny an individual uses to accept scientific reasoning. If someone can't cite ethical principles, articulate publications, and bring personal experience, why do they believe what they believe?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @adambow03688349 @gorskon
All of which are done in written discussions Apparently you’ve never read or are incapable of concentrating long enough to read detailed discussions in scholarly journal, but have a child-like need for entertainment rather than enlightenment.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @FrankDElia7 @gorskon
You are missing the point. Written discussions have disadvantages too. Is it he who is doing the writing? Do we talk to patients in writing (these are physicians talking). I think discussions are repudiated as a way to defer: broader outreach will miss the beat down in writing.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Discussing issues with patients is NOT the same thing as "debating" pseudoscience with cranks on podcasts, NamePlusBunchofNumbers. 

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.