Poll of the Day > Joe Rogan suggests weeklong debates to prove Climate Change exists.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/MythinformedMKE/status/1494312437000060934

People surely can't be serious if they believe this is the answer.

I don't get it. What's happening? I don't blame the guy for not wanting to debate matters of science with conspiracy theorists.

kind9 posted...

I don't get it. What's happening? I don't blame the guy for not wanting to debate matters of science with conspiracy theorists.

Conspiracy theorists think you can't prove them wrong unless you debate their bad faith arguments that they construe to specifically try to discredit your arguments.

"Flat earthers need to be educated, not debated." - Aron Ra

Pretty much goes for all science deniers.

I suggest Joe Rogan take some more drugs, and hopefully go to jail.
However, the media is above to the law.

THEGODDAMNBATMA posted...

Conspiracy theorists think you can't prove them wrong unless you debate their bad faith arguments that they construe to specifically try to discredit your arguments.

Pretty much. Nothing about it is a legitimate effort to have intellectual discourse on the subject. It's a never-ending torrent of ridiculous arguments that even a high school science education can see through, presented in such a manner that it's extremely laborious to reach the standard of proof they're demanding despite the claims being so clearly wrong. It's specifically designed to wear out the patience of people that know what they're talking about so they stop trying, at which point the science denier claims victory and the audience he's attracted by doing exactly this eats it right up because they're all too stupid to know any better.

When people like that debate they don't like introducing evidence and data into the discussion. They think it can be settled purely through rhetoric, so really they're more interested in "winning" the debate than being right.

kind9 posted...

"Flat earthers need to be educated, not debated." - Aron Ra

Pretty much goes for all science deniers.

This. If Rogan cared about the truth, he would bring on educators, not debaters.

Why do people even listen to this donkey raping shit eater?

Conner4REAL posted...

Why do people even listen to this donkey raping shit eater?

There's videos of both of those?

THEGODDAMNBATMA posted...

People surely can't be serious if they believe this is the answer.

Yes people seriously don't want to legitimize idiots who can't make supported arguments.

I suggest we hold a week long debate to prove Joe Rogan exists.

KodyKeir posted...

I suggest we hold a week long debate to prove Joe Rogan exists.

I, for one, have never seen him, so I don't think he does.

kind9 posted...

"Flat earthers need to be educated, not debated." - Aron Ra

Pretty much goes for all science deniers.

They deny science so they can have a community or an excuse to feel superior to everyone else. It's not a lack of education.

adjl posted...

I, for one, have never seen him, so I don't think he does.

He doesn't think, therefore he isn't.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/4/8/AAckHXAAC8UU.jpg

Joe Rogan needs this quote. I initially never thought he was stupid. Not during that 90s show he was on with Andy Dick. Not when he hosted Fear Factor or whatever. Not when he did MMA and commentary. Not even at the start of his podcast career. But today, weve reached that point where I cant unsee the stupidity that he has shown. Damn. He did it to himself.

P.S. Not making excuses for him either but I boxed since age 16, and even as one who didnt take many punches you still are left with some after effects of it all. Hard time remembering certain words for me but maybe in him he just generally got dumb. Idk.

Anybody unwilling to debate science doesn't get what science is for.

Any scientist worth their salt can and will back up their claims with observations, show how it was controlled for and explain how they assert their margin of error. Part of what makes science great is that you can and should have back and forths to air potential vulnerabilities and show how they either don't apply or don't matter.

Cool. Can we have weeklong debates on whether water is wet afterwards?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Any scientist worth their salt can and will back up their claims with observations, show how it was controlled for and explain how they assert their margin of error.

Bullshit we will.

I don't have time to debate every moron who wants to argue for hours about basic facts, thinking that their high school education and hundreds of hours reading Facebook memes equals my graduate degree, professional certification, and tens of thousands of hours of experience.

Could I have that debate? Sure. But will I? Fuck no. It is both beneath my dignity and a waste of my time to debate idiots and doing so gives their ill-founded views respect and attention they have not earned and do not deserve.

One does not have a serious, week-long debate with a toddler about the nutritional benefits of vegetables and why they should be eaten. Serious scientists should not be wasting their time debating climate change deniers, for pretty much the exact same reasons.

darkknight109 posted...

Could I have that debate? Sure. But will I? Fuck no. It is both beneath my dignity and a waste of my time to debate idiots and doing so gives their ill-founded views respect and attention they have not earned and do not deserve.

You also weren't in a weeklong debate.

When you agree to talk about something, you don't get to shut down the conversation with circular reasoning of "it is because it is", that's refusing to talk about it, deflections.

darkknight109 posted...

One does not have a serious, week-long debate with a toddler about the nutritional benefits of vegetables and why they should be eaten. Serious scientists should not be wasting their time debating climate change deniers, for pretty much the exact same reasons.

It's hardly a waste of time considering their sentiment's majorly detrimental effect on pandemic suppression. But him coming on to refuse to talk about it did more harm than good, he made scientists look dishonest, or worse, like they spread information they don't personally know to be true, relying on authority.

But that's the problem, right? Going onto "polarized" shows is largely a no-win proposition. The people listening don't want real debate: they want their preconceptions reinforced.

If you engage, adjl described what happens well. If you don't engage, you get accused of hiding something. Little good can come of it because it's not a real debate. I applaud anyone who tries to bridge the divide, but - let's be realistic - Rogan has every motivation to undermine his statements and make sure he looks bad on the debate.

To be fair it's not only the right that sets up slanted interviews, but to be realistic they do it more and they take it further.

There can't be any debate because nobody, absolutely nobody, wants one.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Anybody unwilling to debate science doesn't get what science is for.

Any scientist worth their salt can and will back up their claims with observations, show how it was controlled for and explain how they assert their margin of error. Part of what makes science great is that you can and should have back and forths to air potential vulnerabilities and show how they either don't apply or don't matter.

adjl posted...

Nothing about [this] is a legitimate effort to have intellectual discourse on the subject. It's a never-ending torrent of ridiculous arguments that even a high school science education can see through, presented in such a manner that it's extremely laborious to reach the standard of proof they're demanding despite the claims being so clearly wrong. It's specifically designed to wear out the patience of people that know what they're talking about so they stop trying, at which point the science denier claims victory and the audience he's attracted by doing exactly this eats it right up because they're all too stupid to know any better.

You're not wrong that the anti-science crowd's rhetoric has been a major stumbling block for the pandemic response. Heck, I might even go so far as to say that rhetoric gaining the traction it has is the only reason Covid is still a thing (Might. That is a considerable stretch and there have been many other factors). Debating them on their turf, though, is a complete waste of time. Rogan is not extending this invitation for the sake of inviting legitimate debate and educating himself and his viewers. He's extending this invitation because he knows accepting the invitation would be an exercise in extreme, disingenuous frustration for the experts in question and because his audience wants to see the experts discredit themselves (in their eyes) by rejecting it. Even if the invitation is accepted, I can guarantee Rogan has lined up enough bad faith arguments that even if the scientist does spend the entire week painstakingly picking them apart by repeatedly explaining rudimentary science and showing the same incontrovertible evidence again and again, he'll still have enough left un-debunked (just bunked, I guess) that he'll claim victory and his followers will accept that (if they haven't already disregarded the explanations because they think using the same evidence to answer the same question worded differently means the scientist has run out of proof).

This is a waste of scientists' time because it is brazenly designed to be a waste of their time. This is not an educational opportunity, this is an opportunity for Rogan to profit off of reaffirming his audience's pre-existing, misinformed beliefs. I really cannot overemphasize what utter pieces of shit Rogan and his ilk are, given the success they are building by encouraging people to kill themselves and others with their ignorance instead of learning how not to.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's hardly a waste of time considering their sentiment's majorly detrimental effect on pandemic suppression.

Speaking as somebody with a background in science and medicine and a near-front-line seat to the public health response to Covid, who has devoted countless hours over the last two years to correcting and arguing with Covid deniers and anti-vaxxers, it is almost invariably a waste of time to argue with these people. You cannot teach those that are unwilling to learn, and the extent to which dismissing Covid's danger and fearmongering about preventative measures has become a matter of personal and political identity means these people feel that they would be compromising who they fundamentally are as a person to accept that they have anything to learn.

I continue to try, on the off chance that I might manage to chip away at their ignorance enough to make a difference, but my main focus in doing that is making sure that their misinformation doesn't go unchallenged. The science deniers themselves are generally a lost cause, but there are still a lot of people out there who genuinely don't know what to think (this being a pretty confusing, scary situation for most laypersons, and most people having the basic integrity to not let that fear lead them to completely deny everything) and are still weighing their options. I feel that, as somebody who can inform them, I have a responsibility to do so. I don't know how to fix the overt deniers (they refuse to learn, and any attempt to force them to do so or stifle their ability to influence others only seems to galvanize the position), but there's still hope for the people that are just confused.

adjl posted...

You cannot teach those that are unwilling to learn

adjl posted...

I don't know how to fix the overt deniers

It's much akin to deprogramming someone who has been in a cult their entire life, it takes a great amount of time, effort and skill, and it doesn't always work, especially if you cannot remove them from the toxic environment that fostered their belief.

It's why well funded public schools are so important, it is far easier to teach someone the right thing the first time, then to try to correct misinformation, misconceptions and misguidance.

KodyKeir posted...

It's why well funded public schools are so important, it is far easier to teach someone the right thing the first time, then to try to correct misinformation, misconceptions and misguidance.

And, of course, it's no coincidence that the politicians benefiting most from this ignorance and misinformation tend to be the ones in favour of stripping down public schooling even further (not to say that simply throwing more money at schools necessarily solves the problem, but simply taking money away definitely won't).

KodyKeir posted...

especially if you cannot remove them from the toxic environment that fostered their belief.

Which has really been the biggest issue with Covid. I can put in all the effort I want to try and convince somebody of the truth around the matter, but when they finish reading my comment and scroll down to immediately see another meme painting Covid denial as "free thinking," any progress I made on bringing them around is lost. There's a steady bombardment of validation from a very vocal community of anti-vaxxers and science deniers, and being welcomed by that is a much more comfortable, attractive prospect than letting the seeds of doubt be nurtured.

darkknight109 posted...

Cool. Can we have weeklong debates on whether water is wet afterwards?

Bullshit we will.

I don't have time to debate every moron who wants to argue for hours about basic facts, thinking that their high school education and hundreds of hours reading Facebook memes equals my graduate degree, professional certification, and tens of thousands of hours of experience.

Could I have that debate? Sure. But will I? Fuck no. It is both beneath my dignity and a waste of my time to debate idiots and doing so gives their ill-founded views respect and attention they have not earned and do not deserve.

One does not have a serious, week-long debate with a toddler about the nutritional benefits of vegetables and why they should be eaten. Serious scientists should not be wasting their time debating climate change deniers, for pretty much the exact same reasons.

You're not a scientist though.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Anybody unwilling to debate science doesn't get what science is for.

Any scientist worth their salt can and will back up their claims with observations, show how it was controlled for and explain how they assert their margin of error. Part of what makes science great is that you can and should have back and forths to air potential vulnerabilities and show how they either don't apply or don't matter.

Give me a break dude. We're talking about science deniers here and you're acting like they have something to add to science. No, they're all useless bad faith actors and their only goal in debating is to cast doubt on the science that they perceive as conflicting with their own worldview. The only value in debating them is to allow them to demonstrate how insane they are. The back and forth you're talking about should be between scientists or science communicators and the general public. Science deniers can go bury their heads in the sand.

Revelation34 posted...

You're not a scientist though.

Yes, I am. Have been for quite a while now (I don't like doxxing myself by giving absolute numbers, so I'll just say it's been over 20 years at this point).

To be fair, I'm not a climate scientist specifically, but I encounter similar science-deniers in my own line of work that I have to deal with.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's hardly a waste of time considering their sentiment's majorly detrimental effect on pandemic suppression.

Countless scientists have tried to debunk myths and "bad science" around the pandemic, vaccines, masks, etc. Any number of doctors, epidemiologists, and other medical professionals have been on TV, social media, Youtube, and anywhere else they can get a platform to explain that yes, vaccines work, yes, they're safe, yes, masks are effective, so on and so forth.

It has not slowed down the morons one bit.

Hell, half the time those arguments get thrown right back at the scientists. How many times have you seen a Boomer Facebook meme along the lines of, "If the vaccine is so perfect, why are the fighting so hard to force you to take it?".

To some people, the simple fact that you are debating their views on a good faith basis is affirmation that they must be on to something. That's why I've largely stopped trying to argue anti-science views as though their proponents are actual scholars worthy of recognition, because they never are. I will still correct misconceptions and falsehoods on public platforms where I see them, but I generally try to avoid getting sucked into arguments on specifics.

Social media has started to figure out that deleting these falsehoods is the appropriate remedy to them; letting people argue just adds more fuel to the fire.

adjl posted...

Debating them on their turf, though, is a complete waste of time.

I can never agree with this, the way I see it is that it's the best show of genuine willingness to debate and not bleat on with deaf ears. When people lose willingness to be vulnerable and entertain ideas they disagree with, that's the death of any meaningful discussion.

adjl posted...

He's extending this invitation because he knows accepting the invitation would be an exercise in extreme, disingenuous frustration for the experts in question and because his audience wants to see the experts discredit themselves (in their eyes) by rejecting it.

I have never seen Joe act in this way so I have a hard time believing it. Sure he's an idiot, I don't think he's malicious.

adjl posted...

Even if the invitation is accepted, I can guarantee Rogan has lined up enough bad faith arguments that even if the scientist does spend the entire week painstakingly picking them apart by repeatedly explaining rudimentary science and showing the same incontrovertible evidence again and again, he'll still have enough left un-debunked (just bunked, I guess) that he'll claim victory and his followers will accept that (if they haven't already disregarded the explanations because they think using the same evidence to answer the same question worded differently means the scientist has run out of proof).

I don't think he'd be aware they're bad faith, nor that he'd claim a victory either. I haven't seen him ever on a show present himself as the actual opposition, only as a voice of whatever counterarguments he's heard (or has), so there's no victory to claim. He may not be convinced but he's allowed to not be convinced.

adjl posted...

You cannot teach those that are unwilling to learn

I wouldn't say this is true of Joe either. He's learned his stance in the first place, question is are you convincing enough to overrule what feels right to him. If he's convinced, since he's an influence on others, others will follow suit.

adjl posted...

I continue to try, on the off chance that I might manage to chip away at their ignorance enough to make a difference, but my main focus in doing that is making sure that their misinformation doesn't go unchallenged.

Convincing a sheep does nothing when they're in the flock with their shephard. If someone is surrounded by like-minded people and a higher authority says its true, you don't have credibility to them. Your degrees and learning alone doesn't have as much weight as social pressures.

kind9 posted...

We're talking about science deniers here and you're acting like they have something to add to science.

We're talking about research deniers i.e. people who don't feel convinced by the same information as us. As far as they're concerned, we're trying to spread insufficient data as facts and they feel they have deduced from other data they do trust that it can't be true. It's very easy to lie to people with stats, and with the amount of data spread about covid that was done in a disingenuous way to make people act appropriately, they have reason to be suspicious.

I'm of the opinion that when the whole "covid deaths aren't the same as deaths while having covid" thing happened, that immediately put anybody questioning the severity in to high alert around people who spread the covid death reports. This put well-established scientists in the firing line, and I haven't seen anybody trying to re-establish themselves by using hard data. I've seen lots of "I'm a doctor and I've read the data and you should be convinced because I am", but when doctors are being held responsible for "lying" to them, that credibility means nothing.

kind9 posted...

The only value in debating them is to allow them to demonstrate how insane they are. The back and forth you're talking about should be between scientists or science communicators and the general public. Science deniers can go bury their heads in the sand.

To them, that's like saying "Christianity should only be debated between priests and the public", which has the pretty glaring problem of priests being pretty invested in saying God is real.

When it comes to science communicators, I often see covid communicated like word of God from on high, there's no Bill Nye type breaking it down in a simple enough form that the general public can actually understand. We can understand a bright flame from magnesium by burning a strip of magnesium.

I haven't seen a simplified childrens science demonstration of covid that's so clearly apparent, and it's pretty difficult to do so. This is why it was so damning when the covid deaths thing was highlighted; facts couldn't be transmitted any more as faith in communications was harmed.

darkknight109 posted...

Countless scientists have tried to debunk myths and "bad science" around the pandemic, vaccines, masks, etc. Any number of doctors, epidemiologists, and other medical professionals have been on TV, social media, Youtube, and anywhere else they can get a platform to explain that yes, vaccines work, yes, they're safe, yes, masks are effective, so on and so forth.

I've seen scientists say the data is there, but I haven't seen much convincing. How do you physically demonstrate that covid doesn't go through a mask? If they don't trust you, they can't prove it to themselves.

It's even worse with masks because we see people say "I can't breathe with a mask on" and the response be "yes you can, the air still goes through", but the person still feels a sensation that they interpret as difficulty breathing. I've never heard anybody address that, i.e. "when your mask is soggy with your dank spit, the air will be humid and warmer, so it will feel different, but you still get air".

darkknight109 posted...

How many times have you seen a Boomer Facebook meme along the lines of, "If the vaccine is so perfect, why are the fighting so hard to force you to take it?".

That's a good example of how poor the communication is. That's literally "If it's so perfect, why can't you prove it to me first and then I'll come take it?". They're not presented with information they can take in and make sense of. Remember 21% of people have under 88 IQ, they're not bright, and they don't trust you.

darkknight109 posted...

To some people, the simple fact that you are debating their views on a good faith basis is affirmation that they must be on to something.

It's like looking at someone with open arms in boxing, it looks vulnerable but you think they're inviting a hit because they have a counter planned. They're defensive and suspicious, they haven't been given reason to trust your claims in their personal lives.

"Stupid guy that doesn't understand basic science wants to 'debate' already settled scientific realities"

ReturnOfFa posted...

"Stupid guy that doesn't understand basic science wants to 'debate' already settled scientific realities"

Equivalent to "Stupid guy that doesn't understand the Bible wants to 'debate' already settled Christian realities".

There are no stupid questions, the more people speak, the more people know.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Equivalent to "Stupid guy that doesn't understand the Bible wants to 'debate' already settled Christian realities".

There are no stupid questions, the more people speak, the more people know.

Frankly, I did react a little strongly and you're correct here. That being said, there are already 1000s of resources on the type of 'debates' that Joe wants to see. He should really hire someone to 'dig' through that type of content if he is so passionate about it.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

When people lose willingness to be vulnerable and entertain ideas they disagree with, that's the death of any meaningful discussion.

Only one problem - you just described the climate deniers (and the COVID deniers, for that matter) in a nutshell. If someone is anti-science, they're not interested in entertaining ideas they disagree with - by your own admission, that means no meaningful discussion can take place, so why would we waste our time pretending otherwise?

I am perfectly willing to discuss and debate matters with someone I disagree with. I do it all the time, here and elsewhere. But on matters where the science is very much settled (and, frequently, the person on the other side of the debate isn't a professional who has anything to offer from a scientific perspective and is instead simply giving their own unfounded conjecture, typically cited from the University of Facebook), why bother? The only people who don't already acknowledge the facts of the matter are those who aren't interested in arguing in good faith.

If you don't believe that climate change is real or that vaccines don't cause autism or that Sandy Hook was a real attack and not a government false flag or any one of a number of other conspiracy theories, despite the mountain of evidence proving otherwise, no amount of reasoned arguments from me is going to change your mind. Accordingly, I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you of something you've already clearly made up your mind on. After all, if you don't trust known, accredited scientists willing to stake their names and reputations on their claims, you're probably not going to trust me, an anonymous voice on the internet, either.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

He's learned his stance in the first place, question is are you convincing enough to overrule what feels right to him.

Is adjl "convincing enough" to overrule what Joe "feels" is right? Do you not see the inherent problems in that question?

Science doesn't give a shit what you "feel", nor how convincing you are. You're either right or you aren't. Trust us or don't, acknowledge the science or don't, but it won't change reality.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

This put well-established scientists in the firing line, and I haven't seen anybody trying to re-establish themselves by using hard data.

Hard data is being published daily that backs up what these scientists are saying and it has been cited extensively. The issue isn't that scientists aren't using hard data to establish themselves, it's that morons have convinced themselves that the hard data is fabricated.

When you reach that level of paranoia and denial of facts, basically nothing anyone says will reach you. Either there is someone in your life who you *do* trust who manages to break through the fog and convince you of the truth, or, more likely, you'll go on believing the lies unless and until life smacks you upside the head for it. Problem is, some of those smacks can be pretty damaging, if not outright fatal.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

When it comes to science communicators, I often see covid communicated like word of God from on high, there's no Bill Nye type breaking it down in a simple enough form that the general public can actually understand.

This becomes a Catch-22, though. Present it in a simple manner (which, yes, has been done) and you'll get someone in the deniers group that actually has a basic grasp of science point out, correctly, "Dude, you're ridiculously oversimplifying it. Are you an idiot? It's way more complicated than that!". Then when you try to clarify and get into the thickets of details, most people's brains shut off because they don't have the knowledge base and educational backing to follow what you're saying. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I mean, what part of COVID specifically do you think hasn't been communicated in basic terms that a child could understand?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

How do you physically demonstrate that covid doesn't go through a mask? If they don't trust you, they can't prove it to themselves.

Well, that's the issue, isn't it? It's like saying, "I don't believe diseases exist; I think sickness is spread through miasma." If they don't believe that, short of inviting them into a medical laboratory and letting them look through a microscope, you can't really convince them that their beliefs are wrong, and it's completely impractical to do that on a large scale.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's even worse with masks because we see people say "I can't breathe with a mask on" and the response be "yes you can, the air still goes through", but the person still feels a sensation that they interpret as difficulty breathing. I've never heard anybody address that

I have - specifically, by pointing out that people like doctors spend most of their days with masks on and they somehow don't asphyxiate.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That's a good example of how poor the communication is. That's literally "If it's so perfect, why can't you prove it to me first and then I'll come take it?". They're not presented with information they can take in and make sense of.

Except... they have.

It has been explained, ad nauseum, how vaccines work, in terms basically anyone can understand. Here, I can do it right now - you get a small, inactive chunk of virus shot into your arm. Your body learns about it and develops special cells that are tailored to detect and kill it, so that if the actual virus ever shows up in your body, you will have cells there that can easily and quickly get rid of it before it does any serious damage. It's the biological equivalent of handing your body the Death Star plans so that all the little Luke Skywalkers floating around in your bloodstream figure out how to blow it up.

The issue isn't that people don't understand that; the issue is that they don't believe it. Which leads nicely to my next point...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They're defensive and suspicious, they haven't been given reason to trust your claims in their personal lives.

In your posts, you're making a critical assumption that is generally not true. You're assuming that these people are debating from a position of rationality and open-mindedness.

This is the closest part of your post to the truth, which is that for most of these people it is not an issue of facts, it is an issue of emotion. The issue isn't that they don't *understand* the facts and the data, the issue is that they don't *trust* the data. Scientific discussion and scholarly debate can clear up misunderstandings of data, but they do absolutely nothing to address lack of trust. If you don't trust the data being presented because you think that the government is secretly microchipping everyone or the 5G microwaves will mind control your brain or this is a plan by the illuminati to sterilize everyone and kill off the poor, more data and debate isn't going to address that issue.

Debating someone on an emotional issue is pointless. If you love the movie ABC and I tell you it's awful and give a three hour speech breaking down why, you're not going to change your mind or stop loving movie ABC. For most people who are on the anti-science side, they have made it an emotional issue. For some, it is part of their political identity, tied mostly to Trump constantly going on anti-science tirades and denying the seriousness of the virus; for others, it is part of their religious identity, as various preachers (again, mostly in the US) have spoken out against vaccines; and for some, it is a personal issue, as the virus has drained them so badly that they want to deny it exists in any way they can.

I can't help those people. No scientist can help those people. You could put these people in a four year course taught by Dr. Fauci himself, going over the science that led to the study of the disease and the development of the vaccine and not a single one of them would change their minds - in fact, the effort to convince them how wrong they were would likely only entrench their view that they are right and being subjugated/repressed/indoctrinated.

If it is an emotional issue, then someone with an emotional connection to that person is the only one who might convince them that they're wrong and even then, only by discussing it in emotional, non-scientific terms. More scientific explanation and debate does not help that process along - it is a waste of time.

darkknight109 posted...

Only one problem - you just described the climate deniers (and the COVID deniers, for that matter) in a nutshell. If someone is anti-science, they're not interested in entertaining ideas they disagree with - by your own admission, that means no meaningful discussion can take place, so why would we waste our time pretending otherwise?

They're actively coming out in to the open to spread their beliefs and arguing with the public they know they're not in agreement with, that's something. When it comes to Joe, his whole thing is bringing in people with beliefs that are otherwise not well-expressed. He brings people in and offers up questions for them to expand on what they think, he makes himself vulnerable to their point of view, so meaningful discussion can happen. Being an influence on many, he is an ideal candidate to sway.

darkknight109 posted...

But on matters where the science is very much settled (and, frequently, the person on the other side of the debate isn't a professional who has anything to offer from a scientific perspective and is instead simply giving their own unfounded conjecture, typically cited from the University of Facebook), why bother?

It's not settled for them. You can tell a colour blind person something is blue and science says it's settled, but if they just see grey, they still think it's grey until you show them what they're unable to see.

darkknight109 posted...

If you don't believe that climate change is real or that vaccines don't cause autism or that Sandy Hook was a real attack and not a government false flag or any one of a number of other conspiracy theories, despite the mountain of evidence proving otherwise, no amount of reasoned arguments from me is going to change your mind.

The evidence isn't credible to them. It's like police stats, people believe them if it suits their beliefs, but don't if they think it suits the police's agenda. You can't convince people that Sandy Hook wasn't a government conspiracy if you can't prove to them that the government couldn't have done it. People will take on unlikely theories if it's about someone or something they don't like/trust.

In the case of autism vaccines, you can't prove it doesn't cause autism from data from scientists when the claim comes from a distrust of scientists in the first place. Some guy claiming vaccines don't cause autism has more credibility to them and less to you, they may not use accurate terms, but when people don't trust scientists, scientific terms look like loaded terms and misdirects.

darkknight109 posted...

Is adjl "convincing enough" to overrule what Joe "feels" is right? Do you not see the inherent problems in that question?

Science doesn't give a shit what you "feel", nor how convincing you are. You're either right or you aren't. Trust us or don't, acknowledge the science or don't, but it won't change reality.

You have to show them that is reality. Your eyes are covered in capillaries but you feel you can see clearly, everything goes through a lens of people's feelings on things. People make real actions off of felt intuitions so if you want to effect real change in people, you have to change how they feel.

Feelings don't care for facts, you have to earn trust to get them to have the right feeling and make real change.

darkknight109 posted...

Hard data is being published daily that backs up what these scientists are saying and it has been cited extensively. The issue isn't that scientists aren't using hard data to establish themselves, it's that morons have convinced themselves that the hard data is fabricated.

Publishing hard data is not the same as using hard data. I can say there's a paper that says coal can be turned in to a super sharp blade, but if a knife maker can't read that paper, that paper doesn't mean anything, they're going to stick to what they know.

I see people stating the data, but it's not presented in a way morons can consume, it could be a cleverly worded manipulation as they don't have the means to understand it, so it makes more sense to them to ignore it.

darkknight109 posted...

Either there is someone in your life who you *do* trust who manages to break through the fog and convince you of the truth, or, more likely, you'll go on believing the lies unless and until life smacks you upside the head for it.

That's why engaging with Joe openly with as much information as possible and ELI5 is so important. He's the person a lot of people trust, his beliefs effect many and there's no clear figurehead above him influencing his beliefs, they are his own so he has authority to challenge them in his own head.

darkknight109 posted...

This becomes a Catch-22, though. Present it in a simple manner (which, yes, has been done) and you'll get someone in the deniers group that actually has a basic grasp of science point out, correctly, "Dude, you're ridiculously oversimplifying it. Are you an idiot? It's way more complicated than that!". Then when you try to clarify and get into the thickets of details, most people's brains shut off because they don't have the knowledge base and educational backing to follow what you're saying. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I'm not seeing the catch there. You first get the morons, then when the smarter one responds, you demonstrate you have a counter at their level too so the morons see you weren't caught out. They don't understand what was said there, but they got the simpler explanation and can see you're confident enough to argue at that level they don't get. The first stage got their confidence so the second stage doesn't drive them off.

The only weakness is a stubborn authority, but you should be arguing with the highest authority in that social group in the first place.

darkknight109 posted...

I mean, what part of COVID specifically do you think hasn't been communicated in basic terms that a child could understand?

If covid kills, why did I and my friends just get a cold? How do you know it's not just the flu? How do you know that the gub'mint isn't lying about a normal cold to inject microchips? What are the ACTUAL deaths by covid, instead of deaths with? Why are the rules opening and closing all the time? If it's so bad, why doesn't the government act it?

I'm not a denier, but what I see is "It is because we did tests", which means nothing to them as they don't know what the tests are or why they're valid. There also "why would the government care to chip you? Don't be dumb" when I'm sure over the last few years people have come up with wild reasons to do that (or just cite the wild shit the CIA has actually done just cuz).

darkknight109 posted...

Well, that's the issue, isn't it? It's like saying, "I don't believe diseases exist; I think sickness is spread through miasma." If they don't believe that, short of inviting them into a medical laboratory and letting them look through a microscope, you can't really convince them that their beliefs are wrong, and it's completely impractical to do that on a large scale.

We have cameras, we have absolute tonnes of youtube channels basically dedicated to proving stuff like this. They may even just need the basic explanation of why the science moved away from the miasma. These people aren't exactly knowledgeable but they're still skeptical, they need answers they can do something with.

darkknight109 posted...

I have - specifically, by pointing out that people like doctors spend most of their days with masks on and they somehow don't asphyxiate.

They'll assume doctors do shit like go out of the room for a breather or breathing exercises or some shit. They know first hand the breathing feels wrong so if they can't deal with it, they'll assume others can't. They need their experience to be acknowledged and brought in to the explanation so they can make sense of the answer.

You ever see kids in school learn how to do a math problem, but when told to do the same problem but with different numbers, they don't get it at all? It's the same thing, they haven't established how the two problems work the same way.

darkknight109 posted...

Except... they have.

It has been explained, ad nauseum, how vaccines work, in terms basically anyone can understand. Here, I can do it right now - you get a small, inactive chunk of virus shot into your arm. Your body learns about it and develops special cells that are tailored to detect and kill it, so that if the actual virus ever shows up in your body, you will have cells there that can easily and quickly get rid of it before it does any serious damage. It's the biological equivalent of handing your body the Death Star plans so that all the little Luke Skywalkers floating around in your bloodstream figure out how to blow it up.

The issue isn't that people don't understand that; the issue is that they don't believe it.

I don't think anybody has said that vaccines as a concept doesn't work, but I assume you've seen those kinds of people too, but when you tell them you're putting a piece in, they already know they get symptoms from it. That doesn't seem inactive to them.

They love to talk about side effects of the vaccines and trial lengths so they must think there's an active part there that could break your brain. Even better, the fact you do trials at all makes them assume there's a risk and they want to know what that is and how the test proves that risk isn't big.

This is a big part of it, they're big dumb-dumbs with more information than they know what to do with. They're like a kindergartener in a university lecture; they might hear sentences that sound ridiculous to them, but they haven't got the most basic parts down yet to process even a relatively simple answer.

darkknight109 posted...

The issue isn't that they don't *understand* the facts and the data, the issue is that they don't *trust* the data.

And they don't trust the data because they haven't the ability to judge if it's good or not by themselves.

You can understand x+6=11 is a valid answer, even if you don't understand know what x is. They are questioning it being 11 because they thought x = 4 because in another equation x+6=10. they don't know that x is variable, they thought it was static and now think they're being tricked.

They need explaining how they can find out what x is to trust that the answer is 11.

darkknight109 posted...

Scientific discussion and scholarly debate can clear up misunderstandings of data, but they do absolutely nothing to address lack of trust.

Yeah, and it's on you to help deal with their trust as you want them to take the vaccine, they're happy with their answer and staying wrong.

darkknight109 posted...

If you don't trust the data being presented because you think that the government is secretly microchipping everyone or the 5G microwaves will mind control your brain or this is a plan by the illuminati to sterilize everyone and kill off the poor, more data and debate isn't going to address that issue.

Conspiracy theories arise from a lack of knowledge, it's answer seeking behaviour. Data is exactly what addresses the issue, but I suspect you just don't want to go through the depths of their idiocy and fair enough.

darkknight109 posted...

Debating someone on an emotional issue is pointless. If you love the movie ABC and I tell you it's awful and give a three hour speech breaking down why, you're not going to change your mind or stop loving movie ABC.

You can love your partner deeply but given enough data on how abusive that relationship is from a friend, you'll likely leave but not stop loving. If a stranger hounded you on your relationship telling you your relationship is busted and you should leave, you'd tell them to go fuck themself. Data means nothing coming from a dodgy source, even if the data itself is exactly the same.

With a movie the only bit that's relevant is emotion, pandemic response has a lot more elements.

darkknight109 posted...

For some, it is part of their political identity, tied mostly to Trump constantly going on anti-science tirades and denying the seriousness of the virus; for others, it is part of their religious identity, as various preachers (again, mostly in the US) have spoken out against vaccines; and for some, it is a personal issue, as the virus has drained them so badly that they want to deny it exists in any way they can.

People can and have changed their political and religious affiliations upon being given good data by trustworthy people. Problem is who is trustworthy to you is not the same people who are trustworthy to them.

darkknight109 posted...

I can't help those people. No scientist can help those people. You could put these people in a four year course taught by Dr. Fauci himself, going over the science that led to the study of the disease and the development of the vaccine and not a single one of them would change their minds - in fact, the effort to convince them how wrong they were would likely only entrench their view that they are right and being subjugated/repressed/indoctrinated.

Forcing anybody would make them resilent. I'm sure more people left the taliban with free reign than in Guantanamo Bay.

darkknight109 posted...

If it is an emotional issue, then someone with an emotional connection to that person is the only one who might convince them that they're wrong and even then, only by discussing it in emotional, non-scientific terms. More scientific explanation and debate does not help that process along - it is a waste of time.

Yup, you need clean, engaging conversation from someone who establishes themselves in their ethical framework as good and trustworthy. Scientists citing papers don't do this, but people who can talk to Joe on his level and get his approval will likely get their approval too.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I have never seen Joe act in this way so I have a hard time believing it. Sure he's an idiot, I don't think he's malicious.

He knows his audience, and his audience wants to see scientists "lose" "debates." He's a better businessman than to deny them that.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I wouldn't say this is true of Joe either. He's learned his stance in the first place, question is are you convincing enough to overrule what feels right to him.

It's not a question of being convincing enough. It's a question of whether or not he has the integrity to change his mind and learn from new information that corrects his mistaken beliefs. Even more than that, it's a question of whether or not he'll publicly admitting to having his mind changed, knowing that he will lose face among his audience if he does so because his audience sees that as weakness and hypocrisy (see: calling the CDC hypocritical for changing their stance on masks early on).

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's even worse with masks because we see people say "I can't breathe with a mask on" and the response be "yes you can, the air still goes through", but the person still feels a sensation that they interpret as difficulty breathing. I've never heard anybody address that, i.e. "when your mask is soggy with your dank spit, the air will be humid and warmer, so it will feel different, but you still get air".

I've done pretty much exactly that (I tend to focus more on the subconscious panic response triggered by having something touching your mouth/nose than on the moisture issue, but the same basic idea) countless times in response to people insisting that masks suffocate them. I generally do so in conjunction with various citations demonstrating that O2 saturation is not reduced by wearing a mask. I had one guy get so pissed off that I wouldn't accept his belief that he had difficulty breathing as anything more than a psychological reaction that he put me on his ignore list.

People are very attached to being wrong about this.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I see people stating the data, but it's not presented in a way morons can consume, it could be a cleverly worded manipulation as they don't have the means to understand it, so it makes more sense to them to ignore it.

If somebody's sufficiently bent on denying the science, they're going to insist that pretty much any presentation of the data that conflicts with their beliefs has been manipulated to distort the truth. Present the raw data instead, and it's either too complex or obscure for them to understand, or they accuse it of being fabricated (note that there is no such thing as data that has not been manipulated). Accessibility helps to teach people, but again, you can't teach those that are unwilling to learn.

I will say, as much as I'm arguing with you, I don't think you're entirely wrong. The attitude of "why should I bother explaining myself to people that disagree with me?" has the potential to be extremely bad for society's overall scientific competence and sow even greater distrust of science. While there are definitely instances where providing that explanation and debating the issue with people is going to be a waste of time, it is generally beneficial to err on the side of informing people, so people should try to do so. It is, however, utterly exhausting and deeply frustrating to have to keep doing so, because very often you do not make any discernible progress and instead spend the whole time being called an idiot and/or liar. To that end, as much as I can say that this scientist should maybe have taken the bait, I very much understand why he didn't. Dealing with science denial is a thoroughly miserable experience all around.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

He brings people in and offers up questions for them to expand on what they think, he makes himself vulnerable to their point of view, so meaningful discussion can happen. Being an influence on many, he is an ideal candidate to sway.

I think you vastly overestimate Joe Rogan's willingness to accept change, as well as his intent in bringing the people he does onto his show.

Rogan was a conspiracy theorist 30 years ago, which is around the time I first noticed him as a comedian. Three decades on, not much has changed - what makes you think he's suddenly open to changing his mind now?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's not settled for them. You can tell a colour blind person something is blue and science says it's settled, but if they just see grey, they still think it's grey until you show them what they're unable to see.

It is settled for them - they may or may not accept it, but when science is settled, it is settled for all.

Your analogy to the blind man is actually apropos, though maybe not for the reason you might think. A blind man lacks the capability to see colour. If I tell him something is blue and he doesn't believe me, I can redouble my efforts. I can get a million people to tell him its blue, show him wavelength measurements of blue light, explain why the light diffracting off this object is blue... but if he ultimately chooses not to believe the object is blue in the face of all that evidence, there's nothing I can do to convince him otherwise, because he lacks the capacity to see the colour for himself.

Our COVID situation is much the same, except instead of blind men incapable of seeing colour, we have dumb people incapable of understanding science.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The evidence isn't credible to them.

And?

They're not in a position to decide whether evidence is scientifically credible or not. Just because they don't believe it doesn't mean it's not credible evidence.

Again, if someone is so detached from reality that they believe one of these conspiracy theories, it's pointless to try and convince them otherwise with scholarly debate, because it won't work - they're living in a fact-free world at that point and simply dismissing legitimate scientific evidence as "not credible".

Hence my point that such exercises are a waste of time.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You have to show them that is reality. Your eyes are covered in capillaries but you feel you can see clearly, everything goes through a lens of people's feelings on things. People make real actions off of felt intuitions so if you want to effect real change in people, you have to change how they feel.

Feelings don't care for facts, you have to earn trust to get them to have the right feeling and make real change.

You acknowledge this... so why are you pretending that scientific debate on matters of settled science is anything other than a waste of time? Scholarly debate is based on facts, which you've already agreed don't matter when it comes to highly emotive matters of feelings. You've also acknowledged that the people that don't understand science are working off of emotions rather than anything logical.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That's why engaging with Joe openly with as much information as possible and ELI5 is so important. He's the person a lot of people trust, his beliefs effect many and there's no clear figurehead above him influencing his beliefs, they are his own so he has authority to challenge them in his own head.

Honestly, I think you have this backwards.

Even entertaining the hypothetical that "converting" Joe Rogan is possible, morons don't follow Joe Rogan because they trust him and therefore will accept his statements and beliefs; morons follow Joe Rogan because he validates their ill-founded beliefs and they therefore do not need to worry that their views will be in any way challenged. As soon as that is no longer true, they will turn on him and stop trusting him, probably with an accusation that he has "sold out" or otherwise been corrupted by the government/big pharma/the illuminati/*insert bogeyman of choice here*.

Hell, you can easily prove this for yourself. Take a look at Donald Trump - at a couple of events earlier this year, he touted the efficacy of vaccines and said that everyone should get them. You know what the crowd's reaction was?

They booed him.

The people who were so slavishly devoted to Donald Trump that some of them unironically referred to him as *god-emperor* fucking booed him purely because he dared voice an opinion that clashed with their beliefs.

There is no reason to think that Rogan would be any different.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You first get the morons, then when the smarter one responds, you demonstrate you have a counter at their level too so the morons see you weren't caught out.

Except the internet, where most of this takes place, isn't an open forum where people immediately respond to each other. You won't necessarily even be aware that the "smarter one" has even called you out, because it probably happened in a Facebook group somewhere that you're not involved with.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I don't think anybody has said that vaccines as a concept doesn't work, but I assume you've seen those kinds of people too, but when you tell them you're putting a piece in, they already know they get symptoms from it. That doesn't seem inactive to them.

Again, this is easily explained and has been explained plenty of times. You get symptoms from it because the symptoms are your body's immune system at work. As an example, the rhinovirus - the main virus behind the common cold - causes no symptoms in people with healthy immune systems; the runny nose, coughing, fever, etc., that you get when you have a cold is your body's immune response trying to kill and expel the virus. Vaccines work the same way - you feel sick because your body's immune system thinks you *are* sick and is responding in the same way it would if the disease was in your body, resulting in the symptoms.

That's not conceptually difficult to understand. The issue isn't that people don't understand, it's that they don't believe. Those are two fundamentally different issues.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

If covid kills, why did I and my friends just get a cold? How do you know it's not just the flu? How do you know that the gub'mint isn't lying about a normal cold to inject microchips? What are the ACTUAL deaths by covid, instead of deaths with? Why are the rules opening and closing all the time? If it's so bad, why doesn't the government act it?

Every single one of these has been explained on a level a child could understand. Here, I'll do it right now:
1) No one said COVID kills *everyone* - some people will survive. Honestly, most people will survive. But the problem is that even if it only kills only a few percentage points of those it infects, a few percentage points of the entire population is a really big number. If 1% of the US population died, that's 3.3 million people dead.
2) Because tests used to detect COVID-19 react to specific chemical elements of the virus to confirm it is, in fact, COVID-19 and not, say, influenza.
3) Because you can watch a living creature get microchipped by going down to the vet's office and watching them put a microchip in a dog. You'll notice that the needle used for it is fucking huge and that's just for a chip with no internal power source that has a single function (to return data when scanned). In order for a chip to be useful for tracking, it would have to be even larger than those; you're definitely not fitting it in a vaccine syringe. More to the point, if the government wanted to track you, it'd be far easier to just hack the phone you're very likely already carrying.
4) Because the rules are created by politicians, not doctors, and politicians weigh a lot more factors than just medical science, for good or for ill.
5) The world was shut down for the better part of two years, which is completely unprecedented - is that not "acting like it"?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Yeah, and it's on you to help deal with their trust as you want them to take the vaccine, they're happy with their answer and staying wrong.

Honestly? No, at this point, it's not on me anymore. Better men and women than me, who have forgotten far more about medical science than I will ever know, have already made those efforts and still idiots abound.

We have people who have explained the vaccine and the process behind it at every level of complexity, from the facile to the in-depth. We have mountains of data reaching inescapable conclusions. At this point, if you don't accept that vaccines are safe it is because you do not wish to accept it and I'm not going to waste my time fruitlessly trying to convince you otherwise.

I am fully vaccinated and boosted and my life has mostly returned to normal (and what parts haven't, like the requirement to wear masks indoors, are things I can live with). I live in an area where over 90% of the populace is vaccinated and our health care system is no longer in crisis mode. You want to play Russian Roulette with the most deadly disease the world has seen in the last 100 years? I won't stand in your way. And about the only people I will feel sorry for if life decides to call you on your poor decision making is the health care professionals who have to waste time and resources trying to save you from your own idiocy and any family you left behind who miraculously didn't inherit your terminal stupidity.

(in case it wasn't clear, the preceding paragraph is using the hypothetical "you", not referring to you specifically).

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Conspiracy theories arise from a lack of knowledge, it's answer seeking behaviour.

No, conspiracy theories come from emotional disturbance. This is why you can have an event like Sandy Hook, which is conceptually not difficult at all to understand (psychopath shoots up a school) but which is also highly emotive and wind up with a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories don't tend to form around highly technical topics (which would be the case if they legitimately came from lack of knowledge and answer-seeking), they form around highly emotional topics.

Hence why I say that more data, more explaining, and more scholarly debate won't resolve anything, nor convince any conspiracy theorists to abandon their line of thinking.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

People can and have changed their political and religious affiliations upon being given good data by trustworthy people. Problem is who is trustworthy to you is not the same people who are trustworthy to them.

Again, if people don't trust actual, named scientists whose credentials are well known, they're not going to trust me, an anonymous poster on the internet.

Hence my assertion that debating settled science is a waste of time.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

People can and have changed their political and religious affiliations upon being given good data by trustworthy people. Problem is who is trustworthy to you is not the same people who are trustworthy to them.

They can, but studies have shown that attempting to use good data to convince someone to change their position typically makes them believe their original position more. It's that primal flight or flight instinct and being presented with proof you're wrong makes you want to defend yourself.

Problem is would he understand the data? As that is the problem with the dunning Krueger effect. People with a little knowledge think they are experts.

There wouldn't be a debate there would be someone trying to teach Rogan and Rogan dismissing it.

It's the same as with Creationist vs evolution debates. One side had facts the other side has appeals to emotion and little else.

creativerealms posted...

Problem is would he understand the data? As that is the problem with the dunning Krueger effect. People with a little knowledge think they are experts.

There wouldn't be a debate there would be someone trying to teach Rogan and Rogan dismissing it.

It's the same as with Creationist vs evolution debates. One side had facts the other side has appeals to emotion and little else.

This is basically why my initial reaction in this topic was so negative. Watched so many of these, and it's always the same. Yet there's still 1000s of stupid-ass videos covering all of the easily refuted "Out-of-place artifacts" that idiots like Carl Baugh hold up as abstract 'proof' of God...and this shit was debunked decades ago. Yet we now have the present form of YouTube spreading it all still, while there are plenty of debates available.

ReturnOfFa posted...

'proof' of God

Douglas Adams wrote:

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that something so mind-bogglingly usefulcould have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.' 'But, says Man, the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.' 'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and vanishes in a puff of logic.

https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Babel_Fish