Never argue with an idiot. They’ll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
Anti-vaxxers are already too stupid or too mentally ill to be swayed by things like facts or evidence. Engaging them would not only be a waste of time, it would paint a target on this scientist’s back for ever kook and nutter whose delusion is threatened by them. And the last thing that any expert should do is give these nutbags any legitimacy by engaging with them.
If I were him I would accept, but no public broadcasting whatsoever.
Maybe I’m a bit too idealistic, but I don’t think ignoring them is the best thing to do. We should talk, and talk, and talk, responding to the same stupid arguments over and over and over again, just not turning it into fucking entertainment like everything is nowadays.
It’s surprising how reasonable most people are once you talk to them outside of social media.
This will make sense if you are debating one-on-one within the context of a well-organized debate. However, they are not looking to debate, but to amplify their message in a well-known platform, like a big fishing net that catches whatever it can drag to the surface.
I agree that people should learn all the time and as much as they can, but they don’t respect the science and would use this to give weight to their argument while trying to look as calm and collected so that some viewers would believe that they know what they are talking about.
You shouldn’t engage them. You play on your rules, not theirs. I like the analogy of “It is like playing chess with a pigeon: Because it doesn’t matter how masterfully tutored you’ve been in the theory, how sound your thinking and strategy is, or how good you are at the game in general, the pigeon is always going to knock over the chess pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it won anyway.”
They should challenge him to get a peer review through a respected journal instead…
I remember watching a documentary on flat earthers. I can’t remember the scientists name, but he said he would be happy to engage them after they answer his question; “What if anything can I possibly say to change your mind”, if they gave him a valid answer like show me x data, he would talk to them, if not he made his goodbyes.
So what would possibly change this cabal of intellects mind I wonder?
No scientist should tarnish their own credibility by giving these grifters a platform for debate.
This is the simplest and most correct way to view this, good comment!
I went to a debate once with Ralph Nader (before he sabotaged Gore) and some right wing tool. It was one of the most boring experiences of my life. The right wing guy had zero points and was obviously a troll. These things are never useful for anyone looking for actual information. They are only there to platform the craziness and get it spreading. Which is exactly why Rogan and Musk are promoting it.
I was thinking of when Bill nye “debated” the Ken ham.
Two rich guys who contribute nothing to the field demand time and attention from expert. It’s wild that we have people who can throw out a number like 100 thousand dollars as a “bet”.
Three, RFK jr is a mega wealthy lawyer. Not a doctor or researcher.
A standup turned game-show host and the world’s most successfully failed venture capitalist are the policy shapers this world truly needs. /s
I feel like RFK Jr. is just a grieving child that couldn’t cope with the fact that 2 of his closest family members died by assassination, so decided to invent theories to explain what happened. I honestly feel bad for him.
If only we had actual data on the prevalence of diseases before and after vaccines were introduced.
