First of all, the article Mercer cites had a prejudice built into the title. “Antivaccine cranks” is frequently used in a sweeping way to include not only people who groundlessly oppose all vaccinations of any kind, but a number of thoughtful and educated people who have expressed concern about certain vaccines without attacking vaccination in general. So yes, it can be a waste of time to debate “vaccine cranks,” if by that is meant a talk-show host who knows nothing about medicine, but it doesn’t follow that no debate about vaccines could be constructive or educational to the public.
Some European countries have recently walked back from mass vaccination of younger people for COVID, not because of “crank” theories, but because their own scientists have advised their governments that mass vaccination of younger people is not required. Yet if any American scientist had argued for that position during the peak COVID panic, he would surely have been labelled a “vaccine crank” and “anti-science” for his position.
Second, it’s ironic that the author of the article is so concerned about giving a platform to misinformation, when his own presentation contains misinformation, for example:
"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.
“For proponents of unevidenced positions, debate is a device for converting nonsense into audience. The oxymoronic “intelligent design” movement, a repackaging of creationism, attempted to position biblical literalism as equivalent to the copiously evidenced theory of evolution, insisting schools “teach the controversy.””
The author doesn’t directly say, but certainly (in the culture-war context we live in) is likely to leave most readers with the impression, that the only source of doubt regarding some of the more extreme claims regarding AGW is the activity of fossil fuel companies. This of course is not true, as there are scientists – even scientists who have received copious awards and recognition from the scientific community – who doubt certain claims regarding AGW but do not receive financial support from fossil fuel companies. So the author is presenting misinformation by intimation.
In stating without any qualifications that intelligent design is a “repackaging of creationism,” the author again withholds information from his readers, including the information that some ID proponents are not creationists (as even John Harshman here has granted), and the fact that neither “biblical literalism” nor being “against evolution” is essential to ID as a general position.
The author easily could have stated that many anti-AGW people and many ID people are “cranks,” without saying or suggesting that all of the people in those groups were “cranks.”
In statements like these, the author is behaving like the “cranks” he condemns – making utterances based on inadequate research about his subject-matter.
No, I am not going to reply to remarks discussing ID per se or AGW per se. My point is directed only to the remarks made about debating science. The use of the word “cranks” poisons the well; it doesn’t follow from the fact that it is a waste of time debating true “cranks” over scientific matters, that there could never be a case a where a moderated, intelligent debate between qualified scientists who speak to each other respectfully would have public educational value.
As for “staged debates”, that is a red herring, because not all debates have to be staged. There are other formats, e.g., the New York Times might give Scientist A a full page to set forth his dissent from the majority position, and then, a few days later, Scientist B a full page to set forth his defense of the majority position, and then, a few days later, Scientist A a half-page for rebuttal, and a few days later, Scientist B a half-page for rebuttal, with a section allowing reader discussion to follow. The spaces between the articles would give the scientists time to review the evidence and argument adduced, and would have a “cooling off” effect that is usually missing in live, staged, debates. It would also give readers time to review and reflect in between installments, which would have a healthy effect.
Debate has been occurring in science and in all other areas for centuries. It will never cease to be a feature of interaction among scientists. Some formats for debate are obviously defective, as was the case in the Tour-Farina debate. It doesn’t follow that debate as such is never a good thing.
It’s also essential, in a free and open society (and some of us here are committed to a free and open society, even if others prefer a more centralized, elitist model of how things should be run), that the public understands how and why decisions affecting them are made, and since science is increasingly a part of modern life and factors into all kinds of social, economic and other debates, it’s essential that the public be educated in how scientists think and why they come to the conclusions that they do. If they never see two scientists in disagreement, and working out that disagreement in a rational and civil way, if they are instead presented only with an “official” government line of what “science” has declared, and are prevented from hearing what some qualified scientists have to say that differs from that official line, they cannot be responsible citizens and voters in a democracy, since they are being propagandized rather than informed.
Yes, a good portion of what constitutes “debate” is not very useful, but it hardly follows that debate – in appropriate forms – is never useful. Indeed, at any scientific conference where a scientist presents some work, and his or her peers stand up and challenge some of the scientist’s claims, and the scientist responds to defend them, a debate is at that very moment taking place, and I doubt very much that Mercer or anyone else would say that such exchanges should be forbidden at scientific meetings. And there are times, where the results of science impinge in major ways on public life, that it is necessary for the public to understand the differing positions taken by scientists, so that they can, as democratic citizens, understand the potential risks and potential benefits of alternative policies based on alternative interpretations of the scientific data. Anyone who wants to make sure that citizens don’t hear about alternative interpretations (again, interpretations offered by qualified, responsible, published scientists), and instead hear only one authorized interpretation, is no friend of a free and democratic society.