The Scary Push in the Scientific Community to not Debate Opponents

anybody else kind of scared about what this says about the current state of the "scientific community?

Richard Dawkins - Why Bill Nye Should Not Debate Ken Hame

quote:

---

Debating creationists offer their position credibility

---

quote:

---

When you accept a debate, you are accepting there is something worth debating. Political ideologies are worth debating, religion as it pertains to things like human well-being and flourishing can be worth debating, because these kinds of ideas claim to offer solutions to problems and they are debating the best way to achieve such problems. Debates about the existence of God can be fun, they are not really that meaningful, but they are a debate about ideas and beliefs and can be worth effort.

---

quote:

---

Why would a scientist debate this? Nye would do more good on his own going on TV and discussing evolution and the importance of scientific education instead of giving Ken Ham any publicity and a public forum with thousands, if not millions of viewers, to spew his dishonesty. Ham is a snake oil salesmen and Nye just offered him up an infomercial to sell his product. Ham can repeat his mantra over and over; “teach the controversy”.

---

HuffPo

quote:

---

The religious right's stance on climate change, economics and evolution is not informed by their religious beliefs. Rather, these political and economic views are imposed on Scripture, which is often read without theological rigor. It is not religion that is the problem, but rather the use of religion as an ideological weapon. But to respond by using science as a weapon is equally problematic.

The best way to address the problem is to confront the underlying political and economic concerns that are obscured by religious dogma, rather than attacking the religion directly. Our problems require an entirely new political and economic paradigm, one that rests on understanding and empathetic action between people of all faiths. Religious reformers, concerned environmentalists, scientists and economists must work together toward a more sustainable future. Bill Nye is intensely concerned about climate change and evolution, as are we. He should therefore ally himself with sane religious leaders, rather than debate fundamentalists.

---

on the surface you say, "yeah he's right. this isn't worth wasting energy/resources on." however, when you look at the underlying themes of these statements, you have to get scared.

first, the assumption is that the current scientific view is 100% factually correct. this is arrogance and goes against the development of scientific knowledge. sure when you debate people like ken ham or flat earthers, it is easy to assume the validity of contemporary scientific positions in comparison to the mythology...but that is a dangerous assumption because the implicit assumptions are dangerous. we're using comparative stances to validate positions as answers that aren't answers. this is bad for science

second, where is the line drawn. again, when you use a boogeyman like ken ham, it seems easy. but this line of thought doesn't just stop at ken ham, and nothing prevents this view to become another form of religion. isolated, ignorant, full of groupthink, and based in (biased) belief. once you start drawing lines, large bias will emerge in the collective thought process. again, this goes against the very idea of science itself.

society is not served by the scientific community proclaiming itself an ideological winner, or trying to re-shape the way we look at things in society in order to justify scientific advancement. scientific data/advancements should stand on their own in comparison with all those opposed.

science should never back down from a fight, but science should never seek to avoid a fight. science is data-based. science should use every opportunity to advance this. once science declares itself the "winner", then this all becomes much more worthless...and scary