Thread by @han_francis

There is great interest at the moment in seeing what an #antivax V #provax debate actually looks like. Luckily, there are a handful of which one is here:
drive.google.com/file/d/1-156_t…
The topic was #vaccines and #autism, with @stkirsch J(AV) and @MsAmitripped (PV).

MSAmitripped did a superlative job in the face of all the usual #debate tactics. The discussion centered around the usual talking points, but here's where the discussed went off the rails:

1. People who were in Kirsch's camp felt the need to mansplain and talk over MSAmitripped to show their points. PSA: Normal gentlemanly manners, and proper science communication, dictates that you shouldn't need to mansplain and shout to make your point.

2. In the days leading up to the debate, Kirsch tried to change the criteria multiple times and invent arbitrary rules. Evidence was also presented of Kirsch running from multiple prior debates that he, himself requested.

https://twitter.com/SkepticJonGuy/status/1665071598804541440?s=20

3. The debate was filled with whataboutism and goalpost shifting, which is a repeated attempt to cite a new article in the complete absence of a sincere desire to absorb what was previously just said.

4. In the end, on his own substack, in his own words, @stkirsch claims victory no matter what.

https://twitter.com/SkepticJonGuy/status/1665071644283486208?s=20

Basically, the entire antivax ecosystem is rehashing five logical fallacies over and over again, with multiple "sub-fallacies" described here: skepticalscience.com/history-FLICC-…

A sincere professional scientist does not feel the need to resort to these tactics. They are more suited for the courtroom. People sincerely dedicated to the scientific method let their experiments speak for themselves.

The kind of debates that scientists do freely agree to go to, are the kinds similar to what was hosted by @WorldSciFest here:

Some basic ground rules in a sincere scientific debate: 1. Shared agreement on basic reality. 2. Prove your point based upon superior scientific reasoning or superior understanding of the literature.

3. Come with evidence to support your new claim. 4. Adhere to basic human manners (ideally British gentlemanly manners). 5. Be willing to concede incorrect points or provide the conditions in which you would concede. 6. Never make an offer to do something and renege.

7. Show something the other party didn't think of, or systematically point out their intellectual blind spots.
Until the antivax can rigorously adhere to these rules and provide a third party verifiable track record, don't expect tons of provax-v-antivax recorded debates.

I encourage the audience to think for a minute, about a topic they are good at. Then, take the "pro" side of the issue, and bring someone else in as the "anti". Think for a moment how well you would receive the debate tactics used by @stkirsch in your field of expertise.