I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with using "gaslighters" as the term. VERY few people online seem to have a grasp of what gaslighting actually is, and when we want to describe dishonest/disruptive interlocutors, better terminology already exists.
As a headline I feel like that's easy to ignore or deride, when it makes a good point which reflects the general consensus in academia and beyond.
I agree- it's more like "don't debate the conspiracy theorists" since that's what RFK Jr is. And Rogan is just amoral- he doesn't care what gets said, regardless of impact, as long as he gets more listeners.
(to me, and I think probably you, "gaslighting" means to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt in other people by making them question their ability to interpret reality through psychological tricks)
It's not entirely coincidental that the people who advocate for absolute free speech and claim "sunlight is the best disinfectant" also tend to have an agenda to see disinformation, bunk and nonsense spread like wildfire.
"a controversy surrounding an invitation to prominent vaccine scientist Peter Hotez to debate anti-vax charlatan and spoiler presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr"
Quite the unbiased opening... a close relative of a beloved President, son of a former Attorney General and also candidate for President, is dismissed as a 'spoiler'?
And what would his political stances matter in a question of science?
Quite the opposite, to do good journalism you need to avoid[1]. Reality happens to exists, and science journalists shouldn't pretend otherwise by assuming that every single assertion no matter how outlandish has equal probability of being true.
Perhaps we could bring in some conventions from honor duels to help level the playing field?
Alice thinks Bob has slighted her honor, so Alice challenges Bob to a duel (to first blood, the death, whatever). Bob looks like a sore loser and coward if he backs down, but on the balancing side, Bob gets to pick the date and method of the duel.
Let's convert this into an academic debate based on the article.
Alice thinks Bob's claims regarding the COVID-19 vaccine are wrong, so she challenges him to a debate so she can prove that COVID-19 does in fact make you get mind control from 5G (or whatever conspiracy theory). Bob can choose not to entertain the motion, and his opponents get to claim they are 'just asking questions'. But if Bob accepts, he gets to stipulate that the debate take place on X date and in Y format, so he can choose to say "in 3 weeks, over written communication" which can help curb Alice's desire to 'win' by throwing around so many claims in such rapid fire fashion, there is no opportunity for Bob to properly address them without looking nit-picky or running out of debate time.
Could you tell me, in honest words, what you think would come from the debate? Would it generate any additional information that would allow intelligent people to judge anything about the debated topic? Or do you just want to see a slugfest?
It would demonstrate to the public what a real expert like Peter Hotez or Paul Offit is next to an ambulance chaser like RFK. RFK is the most prominent anti-vaxxer around. Humiliating him would cut the legs of the movement.
This was also a huge loss for charity. The $3M could have helped a lot of people.
>Humiliating him would cut the legs of the movement.
No, it wouldn't, at all. People have been humiliating conspiracy theorists with the facts for decades, and the only result is that conspiracy theory has become mainstream. If all it took was a superior rational argument from an expert to convince people of the error of anti-vaxxers, there would be no anti-vaxxers. Yet even on HN, a forum that should be a nexus of rational thought, they dominate any thread where vaccines are a subject. The "sunlight is the best disinfectant" shit isn't working.
What will happen is exactly what people like RFK want to happen - their message will spread, the "experts" will be reframed and reedited and taken out of context through memes and bad-faith videos and exposes, and people will (as they always do) have sympathy for the "underdog" (the anti-vaxxers) and skepticism towards "experts" and wonder what they must be trying to hide.
Most people have made up their minds on one side of this debate. But there is a possibility that some people may change their minds if the expert is persuasive.
I find it appalling that an editor of Science is basically writing an opinion article advocating character assassination and trying to pass it off as “science”.
As a headline I feel like that's easy to ignore or deride, when it makes a good point which reflects the general consensus in academia and beyond.
Don't. Feed. The. Trolls.
reply