The one thing necessary for the triumph of ignorance is for wise men to stop talking to the uninformed
We used to believe that the truth merged from the clash of opinions. Alas, people no longer want to talk to those who hold different viewpoints.
If you think someone is peddling to general public lies and misinformation in an area of your recognised expertise and if you are invited to confront him in a public debate, would you refuse or would you take the challenge?
-+-+-+-+
This post took more time to write than others. I listened to a few interviews of Robert Kennedy Jr because, in some people’s eyes, what he is preaching is almost akin to paedophilia. I did not want to appear to be promoting a lunatic so I had to check it and decide for myself and this takes time. I also found it difficult to make the topic interesting to read.
I think this topic is important because if good men shy away from publicly confronting what they believe are mistruths, then the debating platform is left open to the trolls and the meaning of truth is devalued and even questioned.
A Turkish intellectual from 19th Century, Cenap Şehabettin, said that “one needed a strong head to win in life’s struggle; humans fought head-to-head like rams.“ According to his contemporary, Namık Kemal, “The sparkle of truth came from the struggle of opinions”.
Alas, debates today are more for butting heads than finding the sparkle of truth. Instead of engaging in a collaborative endeavour to establish facts, most argue like adversaries in a Hollywood courthouse drama. This may be why two eminent scientists last month refused public debating invitations.
-+-+-+-+
Exhibit 1 - On 15 June, RF Kennedy Jr appeared on Joe Rogan podcast1. Professor Peter Hotez, Dean of the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, on Twitter, accused him for spreading anti-vaccine misinformation. Rogan, who also hosted Peter Hotez in April 2020, offered $100,000 to Hotez’s favourite charity if he joined his podcast again to debate RFK Jr. The ante was raised to $1m by others but Hotez refuses to debate RFK Jr.
Exhibit 2 - Professor Andrew Dessler, a fellow Substack blogger, supported Hotez decision in refusing to debate RFK Jr. Dessler says “In early 2022, I was a guest on the Joe Rogan Experience. During the show, Joe suggested I debate climate science with Steve Koonin on his show, a proposal that I declined.“ Dessler argues that he has no concerns debating Koonin on Climate Policy but not on Climate Science “because the science of climate change is settled. “
The Poll
What do you think? Do you support Hotez and Dessler avoiding public debate with people holding ‘controversial’ opinions? Please do the poll. It is anonymous. Substack keeps the tally but who picks what option is not stored.
-+-+-+-+
Why would you refuse a debate?
Why would a eminent person A avoid debating Person X? I can think of four reasons:
Person X could be an unknown person with no credibility. Debating Person X would be a waste of time for Person A; moreover, it would encourage many other would-be X’es to challenge Person A seeking spurious fame.
The Person X is not a legitimate debater. He may be an obnoxious person or one with consistently bad debating behaviour. Debating such a person would achieve nothing. Besides, Person A would be running the risk of unconciously mimicking the behaviour of his opponent during the debate and get tainted.
Person A may be worried about how well he knows his area and may not want to risk sounding ignorant in public.
Person A may be mendacious and might be hiding something.
I cross out the last two because I am sure Hotez and Dessler both are eminent honourable scientists. The 1st also is irrelevant because both Robert F. Kennedy Jr and Stephen Koonin are well-known public intellectuals.
Could it be the 2nd reason? How bad can a bad debater be? Here is a list of possible features of a bad debater. Would they stop you from confronting “mistruth”?
Ad hominem attacks: Attack the person not his ideas. In extreme cases, character asassination. Also known as playing the man not the ball, e.g. “of course you would say that. You are a white male!”.
Straw man arguments: Exaggerate the opposing argument beyond recognition. You say “maybe we should consider legalising marijuana under certain circumstances”, and your opponent blames you for wanting to offer drugs in school canteens.
Appeal to emotion: Manipulate emotions to sway the audience, aiming to win the debate based on the strength of emotions rather than the strength of their arguments. Somebody please think of the children.
Gish gallop2: Overwhelm opponents with a barrage of arguments. Inundating them with an excessive number of points may give you an aura of competence.
Red herrings: Introduce irrelevant or tangential issues to divert attention from the main topic of the debate. For example, you argue about the importance of academic freedom and they say that “ if the university does not get sufficient funding, freedom is meaningless. We should focus on the budget”.
Appeal to authority, usually misplaced: Quote a great somebody from the past seemingly saying what you are saying. It was common in my youth to see student activists quoting Marx or Lenin without bothering to develop their own arguments. Many were probably making them up but we had no Google nor smart phones to check.
Misrepresentation of facts: Lie. If you get caught make up another lie.
Interrupting and talking over opponents: Be rude. Call him names like “You are an idiot”. This behavior may lead to a fight with the debate ending up in the police precinct.
Label your opponent : A label makes your opponent not a person but a member of a tribe you do not like. He is of course wrong because ”those people always lie”. Some of today’s labels: anti-vaxxer, terrorist, climate-change denier, pinkie, liberal, fascist, communist. Who cares what you say if you are one of these?
Hotez and Dessler probably think of point #7 applicable in this case, but, even if true, should that be a sufficient cause to refuse debate on such two important matters? I listened to RFK Jr in an All-In Podcast interview , in Joe Rogan podcast, and excerpts of his some other interviews. I don't know whether he is justified in his concerns but I am convinced that he believes in what he says and he is able to develop cogent arguments. I read Koonin’s book, Unsettled, and also listened to him talking to Joe Rogan.
-+-+-+-+
I watch journalists debating on TV and I like it when they are making predictions about future developments and explaining why they think so. I switch off when they start peddling their biases. I am interested not in their opinions but in their knowledge. Otherwise, why should I listen to them? I can think as well as they can.
I understand adversity is unavoidable in political debates and I find them quite boring apart from the theatrics, which sometimes make them interesting. There was a brief period in Australian politics of US-style TV debates between the Liberal and Labor Party leaders. The concept was introduced by the TV program Sixty Minutes and, thankfully, did not last long.
In Australia, people do not like discussing or watching politics. This is partly because there is not much difference between the two big parties. In Turkey, on the other hand, it is difficult to avoid discussing politics when you meet with friends. I think such debates should best be conducted after a couple of drinks. No one would then get offended because no one listens to the other side and people are only interested in finding a space in conversation to inject their thoughts.
I have always enjoyed debating with my PhD students. Every week, we spent one whole afternoon discussing topics related to their thesis projects. Usually there would be visiting students, mostly from China who spent a year or so with us using a China Government scholarship. I limited my role in such meetings to asking questions. In fact, asking questions is a tool useful in all kinds of debating instances. Nothing brings out the best in your debating partner than a carefully worded genuine question. The caveat is you must listen to the answer.
-+-+-+-+
You probably have already figured out what my answer is to the question I posed at the beginning.
If I were Professor Hotez, I would be happy to debate RFK Jr even if and especially if I thought RFK Jr held very controversial thoughts. There is a finite (maybe low but finite) chance that this guy might become the President. If Hotez believes RFK Jr is wrong, then it is probably his civic duty to try and correct him, and his followers.
If I were Professor Dessler, I would debate Koonin. I read Koonin’s book. He makes some cogent arguments. I listened to him on Joe Rogan and he is not an obnoxious person. Also, it is not like Dessler would be providing oxygen to an unknown lunatic. In addition to already having appeared on Rogan podcast, Koonin has held many influential public posts in the past. I also am surprised by the Dessler argument that he would not debate on the topic of Climate Change Science because the Science is settled but he is happy to discuss Climate Policies with Koonin. I do not think you can separate these two topics from each other.
References
Joe Rogan Show — I listen to it on Spotify. Robert Kennedy talk is Episode #1999, done on 15 June 2023,
Unsettled — I bought a Kindle copy of the book from Amazon.
All-in Podcasts — Weekly You Tube podcast that I am addicted to.
Dessler Substack Page — The Climate Brink
Short Takes
-+-+-+-+
‘Overweight’ BMI limit may not be the right index to health
New Scientist, 5 July 2023 (referred to by Nature Briefing)
People with an ‘overweight’ body mass index (BMI) have a slightly lower rate of death than people with a supposedly ideal BMI, suggesting that the threshold at which higher weight might be a health risk is not accurate. The BMI was developed to assess population-level health but is often used to give health advice to individuals.
Researchers tracked the survival of an ethnically diverse group of around 500,000 US adults for up to 20 years and found that having a BMI between 25 and 29.9 — classified as ‘overweight’ — is associated with an 5–7% lower risk of death than having one in the ‘healthy’ range. Lead researcher Aayush Visaria says this shows that “BMI overall is just not a good indicator of mortality risk — other factors such as body fat distribution also play an important role”.
-+-+-+-+
If you can’t sleep just get up
Scientific American, 5 July 2023 (referred to by Nature Briefing)
If you are not able to go to sleep, you should quit trying to sleep and get up. “I would recommend getting out of bed and sitting somewhere quietly with dim light and just relaxing, doing something boring,” says sleep-medicine specialist Kim Hutchison.
-+-+-+-+
Chinese astronauts back on Earth
Xinhua agency, 5 July 2023, (seen in Nature Briefing)
Three astronauts from China’s Shenzhou 15 mission touched down safely at a landing site in the Gobi Desert after six months on the Tiangong space station. Three astronauts are serving on the Tiangong space station, which started operations in October 2022. Tiangong means Palace in Heaven. China began its space station project in the 2000s. The experience gained at Tiangong-1 and Tiangong-2 stations was used in the design and construction of the current Tiangong (unnumbered) station.
-+-+-+-+
Australia first to prescribe psychedelics like MDMA (Ecstasy) and psilocybin
Guardian, 1 July 2023
Australia has become the first country to allow doctors to prescribe the drugs psilocybin (the active ingredient in hallucinogenic mushrooms) and MDMA (also known as ecstasy) as medicines.
-+-+-+-+
Diary
When I first came to Brisbane 40 years ago, I rented a flat3 in Taringa. I did not have a car yet and the nearest supermatket was too far to walk. A cornershop and a greengrocer side by side at Fiveways on the corner of the Swan Road were where I did shop. In Besiktas, Istanbul, I do similar. I shop at the bakkal. This is easy because there is a bakkal every 50 metres in Besiktas. In Brisbane, there are no bakkals any more.
I have been doing the shopping at home every Saturday morning. Currently, I go to the Coles supermarket in Garden City. There are two large supermarket chains in Australia: Woolworths and Coles. I used to be a Woolworths shopper but I switched to Coles a while ago.
There is a good independent greengrocer in front of Coles I go to, Spuds and Plums. That shop is one of the reasons I made the switch to this Coles from Woolworths.
I buy fruit and veggies mostly from the Farmers market these days but there are still items I buy here, like Kiwi fruit.
After Spuds’n' Plums I walk straight into the Coles.
I bought biscuits. I like them plain, like Arnott's Milk Arrowroot.
Forty years ago, I think there were only two types of milk: pasteurised, which came in generic glass bottles; and homogenised, which came in Pauls brand and in plastic bottles (or were they waxed carton containers I do not remember). Today, the multitude of milk choices on offer is confusing:
When I look at this picture, I remember my first supermarket milk buying experience in China. The supermarket in Luoyang had a display of white bottles looking like the above photo. The labels were all in Chinese and I picked one. It turned out at home that it was some kind of soy milk drink. I later realised that there was only one kind of milk in Luoyang supermarkets and it was sold in small 250-ml bottles because not many people needed to buy milk except maybe for some fancy recipes. The rest were white drinks made from different plant material.
While talking about China, I should put here this image of Breadtop, which is placed straight across from Coles. This chain of shops is a recent Chinese import. At the beginning, the offering was a lot more similar to what I saw in Luoyang in similar shops. Today, a broader choice is available. The looks remind of me of Turkish pastries that I buy in Istanbul but the tastes are different:
Back to the supermarket, where I also bought some yogurt. The yogurt I buy in Brisbane is very good. The only yogurt that beats it is the one Meliz makes at home. Lately she does not have the time though and we started eating shop yogurt:
It is the 2-l tub with a green cap that says “Natural”. While we are on dairy products, I will put here this picture of the Haloumi cheese I bought from Triton in West End. The stringy cheese is very similar to whet I would find in Istanbul and thankfully it is less salty. It is Australian made.
After yogurt, I bought Aple Vinegar. Every morning, I drink a glass of water mixed with apple vinegar. We also use it for salads 50-50 mixed with lemon juice. I buy the Mazzetti organic vinegar imported from Italy. I would buy Australian but Coles does not sell organic Australian vinegar except for the house brand and I on principle do not buy the house brand unless I have to:
While the imported Italian vinegar is good, the imported Italian olive oil is no match against the quality of the locally produced oil. I buy Cobram Estate first-pressed extra virgin oil. It is a bit more expensive than the Italian imports but it is the real deal with the acid burning your throat.
Meliz wanted to make some apricot chicken for Eleanor. So I bought some thigh fillets. I prefer organic chicken but there were no organic thigh fillets today so I bought the regular one:
The organic chicken is not very popular so Coles brings them only in small amounts. I wanted to buy two whole chickens and luckily there were three on the shelves:
We like Basmati Rice, Pakistani ımport.
I use the self-pay area:
Scan every item, put them into bags I brought with me, pay, and leave:
-+-+-+-+
Pascal and Hagi
They think they own my desk. Therefore, I throw them out when I need to use my computer.
There is a lot to be said regarding what we were told originally on COVID and COVID vaccines and how the story is changing. But I do not want to enter that rabbithole in this post.
Wikipedia says Gish gallop /ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/ is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper's arguments at the expense of their quality. The term was coined in 1994 by anthropologist Eugenie Scott, who named it after American creationist Duane Gish and argued that Gish used the technique frequently when challenging the scientific fact of evolution.
“Flat” means apartment in Australian English.