If one needs proof that debates are a poor way to determine truth, I need only point to the Phil Plaitt/Joe Rogan debate on the Moon Landing Hoax on Penn Jillette's podcast a few yeras ago.
Phil had debated Moon Hoaxers before and done quite well. Joe Rogan, however, was a better debater and conversation controller than an actual expert on any astronomy subject.
So out of the gate Joe does an absolute Gish Gallop of 'issues' with the Moon Landing. Almost two dozen things are listed in rapid-fire succession. Phil didn't call him on the Gish gallop, and Penn let him get away with it. Phil starts to touch on a point and Rogan interrupts him. Phil never gets a point debunked and Rogan 'wins' the 'debate' about the Moon Hoax handily.
Fast forward a couple of years and Rogan tells us he thinks the Moon Hoax claims are BS.
So, yeah, what happens in a debate means very little scientifically. What happens in a debate as interpeted by a fanboy means even less. When come back, bring evidence.
|