60
Don't play games with disinformation.
Treating disinformation as worthy of equal-validity debate, itself "sends a message", validating the disinformation.
Bias towards fairness means that if the entire congressional Republican caucus were to walk in to the House and propose a resolution stating that the Earth was flat, the Times would lead with "Democrats and Republicans Can't Agree on Shape of Earth."
Will McAvoy, The Newsroom
I understand why you're saying that, but I also think a show like this might convince fence-sitters that flat Earth ideas are nuts.
And James Randi and Penn Jillette could both say a lot about the benefits of using TV to mock pseudoscience. Adam Savage too, while we're at it.
James Randi and Johnny Carson have some takedowns of fake psychics that are some of the best things ever shown on television.
I thought that was going to be when they switched out Uri Gellar's props. I was not disappointed.
My favorite part is Carson's pure politeness, and overt attempts to give him a fair showing and put him at ease. Like bro, any petard you're gonna get hung on is purely your own. I just wanna see you show me what you got. By all means: Go ahead.
what concerns me is they’re never going to make a show where the players never win, so that means sometimes “experts” are going to supposedly be convinced that the earth is flat. that eventuality is not going to be worth whatever benefit there may be of making flat earthers look silly (as if that hasn’t been done enough already).
they’re never going to make a show where the players never win
Why not?
What would you think of a show with basically the same premise superficially but it also just constantly and blatantly ridicules the flat earthers?
you can only do that so much, it would get stale very quickly.
You just don't see the elephants and the Great A'Tuin under there
It’s kind of A Perfect Awful
this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2024
60 points (86.6% liked)
Skeptic
1272 readers
1 users here now
A community for Scientific Skepticism:
Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism, sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence.
Do not confuse this with General Skepticism, Philosophical Skepticism, or Denialism.
Things we like:
- Civility
- Thoughtful discussion based on evidence and facts
- Humor
Things we don't like:
- Personal attacks or disrespectful attitude
- Wild speculation on events with no evidence
- Low-effort comments and posts
Other communities of interest:
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." -David Hume
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS