The science of debate: A reflection on my Joe Rogan Experience

the perils and pitfalls of scientific discourse in the public arena

Over the weekend, Joe Rogan, Elon Musk, and many of the usual suspects harrassed/demanded that Dr. Peter Hotez, a COVID vaccine scientist, debate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on Rogan’s show. Such debates are terrible ideas, as I describe below, and Dr. Hotez was right in declining. I hope he sticks to his guns.

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.

I told him that I’d be happy to debate climate policy, but not climate science. The main tenets of climate science were (and still are) settled. I faced some predictable criticism for this decision, but I stand by it.

Let me reiterate that, while there certainly are uncertainties in climate science, the main conclusions — the Earth is warming, humans are primarily to blame, and future warming carries with it significant risks — are quite well established. I should also mention that I have debated Koonin on the topic of climate policy.

In this post, I’d like to delve into my reasons and explore the pitfalls of translating the process of scientific inquiry into an oral debate.

Over the past century, the scientific community has developed a method of scientific debate that, while not perfect, has proven remarkably effective. The debate takes place in the written pages of scientific journals where researchers meticulously detail their analyses and findings, providing references to previous studies and datasets that substantiate their claims.

This system allows for transparency and traceability. If doubts or questions arise about the claims being made, one can delve into the work to scrutinize the foundations of the argument. You’re not rushed — you can spend as much time as you need reading papers, analyzing data, and thinking about their argument in order to determine if the claim makes sense.

Oral debates, while entertaining, can introduce challenges that undermine this scientific rigor. Without immediate access to the underlying research, a dishonest participant could misrepresent or fabricate studies to support their arguments. Their opponent, forced to come up with an immediate response, won’t have the opportunity to look carefully at those studies in order to respond in a meaningful way.

Debaters can also dodge and weave, selectively choosing points that reinforce their stance while conveniently overlooking a wealth of evidence that contradicts their viewpoint. This is something that would absolutely be called out in the peer-review process.

Adding to the complexity is the fact that no individual, no matter how educated or experienced, can hold comprehensive knowledge about an entire scientific discipline. Given the vast scope of subjects like climate science, a contrarian can strategically navigate the conversation towards obscure areas or specific details that the opponent may not be well-versed in. This would creates a false impression of weakness or uncertainty in the mainstream scientific view, when in reality, it merely highlights the impossible expectation for one person to know every aspect of a complex scientific field.

Related to this point is that the very setup of a one-on-one debate is misleading in the face of a strong scientific consensus. By pitting two individuals against each other, it inadvertently suggests an equivalence between their viewpoints. In climate debates, the reality is a debate between a small number of contrarians challenging the collective understanding of thousands of scientists from around the world. The consensus view is backed by a vast body of rigorous, peer-reviewed research, while the contrarian view typically relies on a small number of outlier studies, misinterpretations, misconceptions, or outright mendacity.

This essential asymmetry is lost in a one-on-one debate format, further highlighting why such a setup is a poor platform for serious scientific discourse. John Oliver really nails this point in this clip:

Moreover, the outcome of an oral debate could hinge more on rhetorical skill than the quality of the science. A charismatic speaker, regardless of the strength or validity of their arguments, may sway an audience more effectively than a less articulate but scientifically sound counterpart.

It’s important to understand that the contrarian may not even be trying to win the debate. Rather, the goal of those opposed to climate policy is often to merely establish the existence of a debate and use this to argue that “more research is needed”. This strategy was pioneered by the tobacco companies in the 1960s and it’s still being used to great effect today. Hence, by just participating in such debates, we might inadvertently be contributing to a state of perpetual gridlock in policy discussions.

While I applaud Joe Rogan's ambition to make scientific debate more accessible and engaging for a broader audience, I remain cautious. An authentic scientific debate, filled with careful statements, validations, deep consideration of the arguments, and nuanced explanations, just does not translate well into the dynamic world of podcasting.

Ultimately, our goal as scientists is to pursue the truth about our world and communicate it to the general public, who pay our salaries. To the extent that we cannot achieve that in an oral debate on a podcast, we should decline to participate.

Postscript: If you feel the need to say something obnoxious like, “You’re obviously afraid to debate,” you’ll be immediately banned. So please make sure to enjoy your last comment on this substack!