Recent searches
Search options
Administered by:
Debating Antivaccine Cranks Debases Science and Harms the Public - Scientific American https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/debating-antivaccine-cranks-debases-science-and-harms-the-public/ “Of all the ways to discuss science, #debating debunked #antivaccine activists, historically speaking, is an awful idea. Having one moderated by a clueless contrarian, and buoyed by a loudmouthed billionaire, would be one surefire way to make it even worse.”
“Far from showcasing science, false-balance debates allow evidence-free fringe ideas to leech vampirically off the respectability of well-established theories. Cigarette companies muddied the clear scientific consensus that smoking was harmful just this way. Faced with incontrovertible evidence of harm, they instead amplified fringe figures, encouraging debate to confound that messaging.”
“One 1969 memo put it bluntly, stating that “doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public.” Cynical as this is, it is remarkably effective at crafting a public aura of doubt over science, the same practices adopted by fossil fuel companies today about climate change.”
“Anti-vaccine activists don’t care whether they lose the debate; they win by amplifying their message. For Kennedy, pushed as a long-shot presidential candidate by what political scientist Norm Ornstein termed “bozo billionaires” disdainful of regulation and taxes, attention is the whole, sorry, game.”
“These spectacles feed a misconception that debate is alien to science, and consensus emerges from some arcane priesthood in lab coats. Yet evidence-guided debate is integral to science. It just requires a devotion to evidence and honest enquiry”