Dumbest idea ever: A vaccine "debate" between two lawyers, @AlanDersh and @RobertKennedyJr, neither of whom has significant scientific knowledge about vaccines, and one of whom is rabidly antivaccine. 1/ ageofautism.com/2020/07/vaccin…
This sort of nonsense is what I like to call, "All Truth Comes from Live Public Debate." It's a favorite crank trope that serves two purposes. 2/ respectfulinsolence.com/2013/04/26/all…
Basically, this tactic serves two purposes for the crank. First, it allows cranks to appear on the same stage/venue as seemingly an equal to an actual authority, thus giving the appearance that their viewpoint is worth serious consideration scientifically or based on evidence. 3/
Second, since debates are won more on rhetoric and appearance rather than facts and science, "debates" allow the crank to Gish gallop and use deceptive rhetoric and logical fallacies to their hearts' content, thus giving them a good chance of appearing to win. 4/
It's even worse when the person defending the scientific consensus is a nonscientist who is almost certainly unfamiliar with the common antivaccine talking points, tropes, pseudoscience, and distortions of evidence. @AlanDersh really should have politely refused. 5/
Basically, @AlanDersh is going to be used as a tool to spread antivaccine misinformation, pseudoscience, and disinformation. 6/6
