8

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments1
Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Public debates strengthen society and public discourse. They spread truth by testing ideas and filtering out weaker arguments.

I think this is extremely not true, and am pretty disappointed with this sort of "debate me" communications policy. In my opinion, I think public debates very rarely converge towards truth. Lots of things sound good in a debate but break down under careful analysis, and the pressure of saying things that look good to a public audience creates a lot of pressure opposed to actual truth-seeking.

I understand and agree with the importance of good communications here, but imo this is really not the way. Some alternative possibilities:

  • Private discussions with experts that get summarized publicly afterward.
  • Adversarial collaborations with public writeups on tricky subjects.
  • Public talks where people can ask questions on confusions.
  • Panel discussions involving experts with different opinions.

I'm sure there's a bunch more here; these are just some ideas off the top of my head. In general, I think there's a lot of ways to do public communications on complex, controversial topics that don't involve public debates, and I'd strongly encourage going in one of those alternative directions instead.

Cross-posted from LessWrong.

Curated and popular this week
Relevant opportunities