- Science and scholarship do not advance via public debate.
- Expertise on a subject matter is not necessarily correlated with rhetorical ability.
- Knowingly are unknowingly, in debates debaters frequently end up making logically, causally, or statistically flawed arguments that still sound good.
- There are a variety of rhetorical techniques that persuade without proving.
- Public debate rewards people who are willing to say anything.
- Confidence and certainty win debates while expertise is all about qualifying and hedging.
- A debate implies a winner and a loser.
- Experts can’t defeat nonexpert “spreads.”
- Such a debate implies that the nonexpert is on par with the expert on the subject of the debate.
- A public debate implies that nonexpert members of the public are competent judges of that debate.
- Brilliant piece here
I would also add:
1. Science is based on probability, marginal improvements and so many nuances - its not binary.
2. Humans are born to argue; its ludicrous to argue with someone who doesn't known rudimentary elements of the subject.
4. Lack of epistemological humility.
5. Lack of gratitude for how far we have come as a species and how much luxuries we have.
6. Sheer waste of time and energy which could be used productively.
No comments:
Post a Comment