Science is one of the world’s two most prestigious scientific journals, along with its British counterpart Nature. You might therefore assume that it would be in favour of debate – that it would maintain a staunchly pro-debate editorial stance. After all, debate is an essential part of the scientific process. Scientists publish their work; other scientists pick holes in it; and over time we get closer to the truth.
If humans were perfectly rational beings like Spock from Star Trek, debate wouldn’t be so important. But, of course, we aren’t such beings. We’re afflicted by conformation bias and conformity. We’re swayed by irrelevant factors like the desire to be held in high regard by our peers and the desire to have the evidence align with our political views. Which is why it’s crucial that we can check each other’s work and then hash out our differences.
But to Science, debate isn’t always a good thing.
On 21st June, the journal published an op-ed titled ‘Scientists shouldn’t debate gaslighters’. The context here is that Joe Rogan recently announced he would donate $100,000 to charity if “Prof Peter Hotez MD PhD” (as he calls himself on Twitter) agreed to debate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “on my show with no time limit”. This was in response to Hotez accusing Rogan of spreading “misinformation” in his podcast discussion with RFK.
“This approach sets up two huge problems,” writes Holden Thorp, the author of the Science piece. “First, it gives RFK’s garbage equal footing with principles that have been established by centuries of science. The second is that to a lay listener, the scientist just comes off as fitting the stereotype of a nitpicking nerd and RFK looks like a powerful communicator.”
Referring to RFK, Thorp writes that “most scientists aren’t prepared to take on his firehose of nonsense” and that “the scientific community desperately needs equally skilled pundits to defend science”. (He suggests “the political commentator Jon Stewart” as one possible candidate.)
I’m not convinced. To my mind, Hotez should accept the debate. This isn’t because I think RFK is right: I haven’t listened to his discussion with Rogan, and some of the things he said did sound pretty ridiculous (e.g., “WiFi radiation opens up your blood-brain barrier and so all these toxins that are in your body can now go into your brain”).
It’s because public debates can be highly informative. Hearing two people state their cases independently is almost invariably less informative than watching them have a debate.
Why? Because when you debate, you have to bring your A-game. You have to address the strongest points from the other side and you have to rebut the strongest counters to your own points. When you don’t debate, you can make your case appear stronger than it really is. So your audience may come away feeling more convinced than they really should.
Thorp would protest that public debates are simply “rhetorical matches” in which the more-factually-correct side stands little or no chance against the more-rhetorically-gifted side. But this isn’t my experience. And even if he’s right that “rhetorical skills” play an outsize role in public debates, I’d submit that “not being challenged” plays an outsize in non-debate settings.
What’s more, Thorp’s own article is full of rhetoric! He denounces RFK is an “anti-vax charlatan and spoiler presidential candidate”. He refers to Rogan’s offer as a “classic anti-science setup”. And he insists that “hucksters like RFK Jr. are skilled at flooding the zone with garbage”.
For better or worse, a lot of people want to hear what RFK has to say. If Thorp is actually interested in persuading them that RFK is wrong, he ought to welcome Rogan’s offer. No one that doesn’t already agree with Thorp is going to be convinced by his patronising and rhetoric-laden article.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Limp wristed would be my assessment of this article. The Holden Thorp character is most certainly NOT qualified to write on the topic of science and barely qualifies to discuss ‘The $cience.’ I suppose his article warranted hi-lighting but it deserves a more brusque take-down.
The thing with RFK that none of these fools gets (or that they deliberately ignore), is his fundamental position is that when new drugs are to be injected into people, the onus is not on him, to prove he is right or that he is not being speculative. The onus is on the drugs manufacturers to prove their drugs do not cause the conditions, such as autism, that have multiplied by at least two orders of magnitude over the past few years.
They have no explanation for the fact, for example, that in the Amish community (who do not take vaccines) autism is multiple magnitudes lower than it is in the general population.
His logic is entirely cogent. He does not have to “prove” anything. Yet scientist after scientist is either ignorant to this fundamental point of logic or deliberately and unconscionably ignores it. It is a point that he frequently makes. Corporate culture militates against it at every turn. Produce and sell products now, check safety later if it can be proved we are causing harm. They then wriggle and wriggle to avoid all enquisitive tests of harm and do their utmost to avoid the completely true and proper scientific principle that you should try your utmost to falsify your hypothesis. The hypothesis here being “these drugs are safe.”
Just look at what has happened to Andrew Bridgen when he has suggested this approach should be taken. In every argument against RFK, the one making the argument ignores this, RFK’s fundamental premise.
I wish RFK would take the same measured position on net zero, where he seems to think that the ‘science’ is completely settled. I fear that he is a Trojan Horse for the UN and WEF acolytes trying to push their global governance agenda, not the knight in shining armour he is portrayed to be.
Yes that is the fly in the ointment with RFK. However listen to his interview by Jordan Peterson and I was encouraged that he is open to changing his mind. He acknowledged Covid has lead him to question the narrative more. He also said that unlike the vaccines he doesn’t understand the proof the figures provide, if any. His position was formed due to knowing some of the Exxon scientists who raised MMGW as likely back in the 80s and this has always been the strongest MMGW argument in my opinion, because those scientists back then weren’t incentivised to say what they were saying. Indeed the opposite. So they were genuine in their belief and RFK is basing his judgement on his trust of their judgement.
In other words he comes across as a thinking reasonable man. I don’t expect someone to agree with everything I say, and on the criteria of intelligence and reasonableness IMO he passes with flying colours.
I take some encouragement from that – thank you. I am still wary on two counts, however; as President he would doubtless be surrounded by advisers all of whom would be fully on board with the net zero agenda; and the wider Kennedy family is known for its fairly radical ties to environmentalism, so it is probably, at some level, in his blood.
I took some encouragement from his acknowledgement of the personal risk he is taking by running for President …. and that he takes considerable precautions to mitigate it.
After all, we wouldn’t want another “lone-wolf assassin” to unfortunately kill another Kennedy, would we.
A rise in autism diagnosis doesn’t equal a rise in the number of autists, especially when this includes loads and loads people who are obviously not autistic like The Gretna[tm]. Further, that the Amish community makes less use of the services of shrinks handing out autism diagnosises as a favour (at least in the UK, they come with monetary and other entitlements as another [female] diagnosed non-autist told me) and hence, ends up with less autism diagnosed isn’t related to them also rejecting certain other stuff just because you want to regard autism as an avoidable disease. It isn’t.
It has always seemed to me that autists are simply born with different wiring, and the rise in diagnosis is a combination of the state being recognised more and misattribution. I am concerned about genetic screening combined with easily available abortion leading to genocide.
I would be interested to see more detail on how autism diagnoses are arrived at, and what are considered the key characteristics shared by all autists, and indeed to hear thoughts on whether the classification is useful or meaningful.
I feel strongly that autism is not something to be “fought” or “eliminated”.
If anyone should debate Pharma shill Hotez it should be Dr McCullough. He’d wipe the floor with the nasty little sh*t because he’s well experienced in medicine and treating both Covid and vax injured patients personally, plus giving sworn testimonies in Senate hearings and he can recount all of the data and studies off the top of his head. I don’t think a debate between them two would last more than 5mins. Just one example of how corrupt Hotez is;
https://twitter.com/goddeketal/status/1671483635642384384/photo/1
What debates have there actually been on Covid-related matters?
You nailed it – since all expert dissidents against State policy are conspiracy theorists, debate only encourages them. Likewise expert dissidents against climate change. Likewise expert dissidents against Neodarwinian theory. Likewise expert dissidents against Linear No Threshold toxicology. Likewise experts questioning the role of HIV in AIDs. Likewise expert dissidents against gender theory… in fact, wherever there’s an established hegemony on a scientific matter, especially with financial vested interests, there you seem to find a refusal of the mainstream scientists to engage.
So on reflection, maybe it is a “principle that has been established by centuries of science” after all. Or maybe it’s just a century or so – see Scientocracy by Patrick Michaels and Terence Kealy for the reasons.
Hitchens managed to convince Mike Graham of TalkTV over to the sceptic side by debate I believe
Convince him of what?
Hasn’t Hitchens been jabbed?
Convince him lockdowns were a mistake. This conversion predates the jabs.
So nothing that made Graham’s life better, then?
I would class it as an improvement.
Persuading people that lockdown was a mistake – itself a lie: lockdown was deliberate damage -is utterly trivial compared to persuading people not to be jabbed.
Hitchens is an intellectual and moral joke who tiresomely whines about how much better it was when bikes, buses and trains were the only means of transport available to the proles..
Well “mistake” was my word, not his. Rephrasing, he persuaded Graham that lockdowns were wrong and should not be happening.
Hitchens was the only national newspaper journalist I am aware of who spoke out against the Covid restrictions and he did so on philosophical as well as practical grounds, and tirelessly made an excellent case. Looking back at his positions on many issues and predictions he made going back many years he seems to me to have been right more often than being wrong. His analysis of the decline of this country, the reasons for it, the mechanisms by which it has been achieved, and the possible remedies, seem unusually perceptive to me, and much more coherent and thought through than most mainstream journalists of the political “right”. His apparent dislike for cars and roads seems a bit weird to me, and more emotional than rational, but I don’t think it’s very important in the scheme of things.
Allison Pearson (Telegraph) has been speaking out against the restrictions for a long time, I’m not sure how long, possibly from the beginning.
Thanks for that.
She and Liam Halligan started speaking out against the restrictions about 6 months into the lunacy.
Yes, she and Liam have been running Planet Normal podcast since May 2020. They deserve credit for being consistently on point about the insanity of lockdowns. However, they failed to really address the science surrounding the mRNA experimental jabs and the ‘safe and effective’ mantra which is slightly puzzling.
The reason RFK absolutely should come on the show to debate Hotez, whether correct or otherwise, is simple: If Hotez really is correct in his counter-views to RFK’s claims, and has a strong case for them, then he should find it a breeze to debunk this alleged “firehose of nonsense”. The fact that he shies away from an offer of a debate tells me that in reality he actually isn’t that convinced he could win it!
So here I diverge from Noah’s point of view. When an individual, scientist, politician or activist refuses to debate a topic, it actually weakens their argument – not least because they’re declining the opportunity to air it publicly, but also because it decimates their credibility: Refusing to debate a topic reveals that one is not really that convinced of their own argument on a deep level that transcends all ulterior motives, such as financial gain or respect by your peers.
Noah:
Permeability of the blood-brain barrier induced by 915 MHz electromagnetic radiation, continuous wave and modulated at 8, 16, 50, and 200 Hz
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8012056/
I wouldn’t call it ridiculous, though it may be disputed.
This is Science’s “I am the Science” moment. In other words, it’s nothing more than shady scientism, an appeal to the religious power of Science(TM) over the public. Suggesting that commercial or ideological interests have perverted research has nothing to to with challenging centuries-old principles, except the centuries old human skills of gaming a system.
It’s almost the exact equivalent of refusing to discuss an accusation that a priest abused children, by appealing to “doctrine established for centuries.” It’s not the doctrine that’s being challenged – it’s the perversion.
It’s also deeply ignorant of the history of science, which as Kuhn pointed out was the discovery of previous error by dissidents who were brave enough to speak out — not some leaping from one triumph to the next.
Kuhn also pointed out that paradigms tend to change not by persuasive evidence, but by the death of the old guard.
Yes. “One funeral at a time.”
Why do these articles get headlined: “Science says …” or “The Guardian says …” or whatever when the article is the personal opinion of an identified individual?
From what I can see it was written by the Editor in his capacity as Editor. Of course a publication doesn’t have a view as such, but Editorial pieces are usually understood to reflect the prevailing view.
I don’t know much about Science but you also mention The Guardian. Do you deny that newspaper typically and predictably reflects a certain worldview on key issues?
Anyway, enough nit-picking, what’s your view of the issue being discussed?
what’s your view of the issue being discussed?
I am unsure and therefore have nothing to say.
You’re unsure as to whether a debate would be helpful?
Yes.
What do you see as the main upsides and downsides of such a debate?
I am sorry but I am really not interested in discussing this one.
This is something not talked about enough, especially in light of further vaccines using the mRNA tech being brought to market and no fake emergency to hide shoddy manufacturing practices behind. The pseudo-vaccines are actually gene therapy products and should be regulated as such.
”COVID-19 vaccines were developed and approved rapidly in response to the urgency created by the pandemic. No specific regulations existed at the time they were marketed. The regulatory agencies therefore adapted them as a matter of urgency. Now that the pandemic emergency has passed, it is time to consider the safety issues associated with this rapid approval. The mode of action of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines should classify them as gene therapy products (GTPs), but they have been excluded by regulatory agencies. Some of the tests they have undergone as vaccines have produced non-compliant results in terms of purity, quality and batch homogeneity.
The wide and persistent biodistribution of mRNAs and their protein products, incompletely studied due to their classification as vaccines, raises safety issues. Post-marketing studies have shown that mRNA passes into breast milk and could have adverse effects on breast-fed babies. Long-term expression, integration into the genome, transmission to the germline, passage into sperm, embryo/fetal and perinatal toxicity, genotoxicity and tumorigenicity should be studied in light of the adverse events reported in pharmacovigilance databases. The potential horizontal transmission (i.e., shedding) should also have been assessed. In-depth vaccinovigilance should be carried out. We would expect these controls to be required for future mRNA vaccines developed outside the context of a pandemic.”
https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/24/13/10514
This is all semantics to me.
The debate about COVID jabs is raging all the time. Its happening in many ways, with many people
RFK and Hoetz having or not having a face to face debate doesn’t change that. It would just be one additional piece of a huge debate.
The challenge by RFK and Hoetz’s refusal, and those on RFKs side ridiculing Hoetz for being a coward and those on the jab side trying to discredit RFK and everything he has to say about the jabs is itself part of the bigger debate.
The “science” guys are basically openly acknowledging RFK would wipe the floor with Hoetz, and are trying to limit the damage of the negative publicity it has created for them with ad hominems.
People are factoring all this into their positions on the subject.
When they won’t debate they have lost because they know they can’t defend their own position. Hoetz is a clown, not a scientist and a paid cheerleader not an objective observer.
The fact of not debating means you have lost is also true of Darwinism, Climate, Net Zero, Rona policies, and all cults within the general religion of $cientism.
I would be happy to debate anyone on why the original Jenner smallpox stabs murdered and killed and how they increased, not decreased the death rate. It is all there in data and reality. Twas the same with Rona mRNA. The data is simply unequivocal and the $cience knows this and will never debate facts instead like Fauci, Russell or Dawkins they descend into ad hominems. It is all they have.
Science comes out against science.
If one is convinced of ones cases then you simply debate it and prove it. To moan “I’m right and he is wrong” convinces nobody.
The classic example of a debate exposing a weak argument was when Nick Griffin appeared on Questiontime. Ok, he was ganged up on but his arguments fell apart when tested.
I’m not at all sure I’d want RFK representing the sceptical view, he’s all over the place on too many aspects. Much prefer Malhotra or McCullough.
I watched RFK on Rogan. He comes across as measured and challenging the consensus, not a hysterical “conspiracy theorist.” That’s what Hotez and his handlers are frightened of.
The evidence of the past 3 years is that the hysteria comes from the Big Pharma bought-and-paid-for “scientists” – like Hotez. They CAN’T debate dispassionately, using data an facts …. so they won’t debate.
They can’t debate because they’re on very dodgy ground. An irrefutable fact is that new vaccines are only ever tested against the previous version of the vaccine, never saline. Turtles All the Way Down lays it out clearly.
Thorp is the editor of the “family” of science journals.
Noah. I recommend that you read RFKJr’s book ” The Real Anthony Fauci “. It’s an eye-opener for those of us who used to believe the narrative, including that RFK Jr was of dubious character. At least listen to Joe Rogan’s intro where he describes himself as such but had the same eye opening experience. The book is full of evidence about how medical science has been corrupted over the last 40 years and no one has produced any serious criticisms as far as I know.