I'm not convinced it's wise to give Forbes more legitimacy by commenting there. Or, for that matter, by linking to their articles. Webcite would be wiser. Don't give them the clicks.
It's a bit of a dilemma. My conclusion is not to debate them, but to point out how unethical it is. That way one doesn't get bogged down in technical jargon which tends to confuse.
I think the average thinking Joe can see how unethical it is once it is pointed out. But I could be wrong and it could backfire. Leaving the propaganda unchallenged has its own weaknesses.
No, there are no easy answers. But I remember that James Taylor tried very hard to get Peter Gleick to debate him. This tells me that even the appearance of debate must be avoided (I mean, why would a scientist debate a lawyer on science... or even on ethics, for that matter?). Debunking, both on fact and on ethics, yes. But on a hostile forum? That risks giving that forum legitimacy it doesn't deserve.
Yes, I have independently reached that conclusion. At a minimum they want to foment doubt, though they'd prefer denial. A debate helps foment doubt.
My tact is to point out that the denier is free to publish his points in the peer reviewed scientific arena, but is displaying unethical behavior by short-cutting that arena.
If the experts aren't convinced, why should the average Joe be convinced?
Then you can avoid a debate, avoid technical jargon, etc. and the denier is (hopefully) seen as unethical for taking short-cuts.
I'm not convinced it's wise to give Forbes more legitimacy by commenting there. Or, for that matter, by linking to their articles. Webcite would be wiser. Don't give them the clicks.
ReplyDeleteIt's a bit of a dilemma. My conclusion is not to debate them, but to point out how unethical it is. That way one doesn't get bogged down in technical jargon which tends to confuse.
ReplyDeleteI think the average thinking Joe can see how unethical it is once it is pointed out. But I could be wrong and it could backfire. Leaving the propaganda unchallenged has its own weaknesses.
No, there are no easy answers. But I remember that James Taylor tried very hard to get Peter Gleick to debate him. This tells me that even the appearance of debate must be avoided (I mean, why would a scientist debate a lawyer on science... or even on ethics, for that matter?). Debunking, both on fact and on ethics, yes. But on a hostile forum? That risks giving that forum legitimacy it doesn't deserve.
ReplyDeleteYes, I have independently reached that conclusion. At a minimum they want to foment doubt, though they'd prefer denial. A debate helps foment doubt.
ReplyDeleteMy tact is to point out that the denier is free to publish his points in the peer reviewed scientific arena, but is displaying unethical behavior by short-cutting that arena.
If the experts aren't convinced, why should the average Joe be convinced?
Then you can avoid a debate, avoid technical jargon, etc. and the denier is (hopefully) seen as unethical for taking short-cuts.