When to Rebut?

Derek Lowe elaborates on his wise decision to limit the number and kinds of questions he will entertain about the pandemic on his excellent science blog:

If you argue with someone like Duane Gish on his terms, you are helping that person win. Instead, seek out active-minded audiences, and try to "argue to 100" when you do. (Image by Ashcraft, via Wikipedia, fair use.)

The effort is high because of the hydra-style argumentation on the anti-vaccine front. There's a steady supply of "But what about..." type questions, and it apparently doesn't matter how many of these are weird, unreasonable, or unsupported by actual data, because here come some more. When you experience these in real time, you are getting the good ol' "Gish Gallop", named after the debating style of one of the big creationist nuisances of years past, Duane Gish. His method was to rapid-fire his list of objections, inconsistencies, and gotcha-style questions at a pace that precluded a thorough answer to any of them. Anyone who tried to deal with one as it shot past found themselves hit with yet another list. Gish's goal was to present the pro-evolution folks as simply unable to deal with the staggering number of problems with their Godless views and flailing helplessly under an onslaught of unanswerable clinchers from the creationist side. [link omitted, bold added]

Indeed, and based on my own personal experience, many of the people asking some of these questions will ignore/not understand/pretend not to get any actual answers you give them, to the point you wonder if they are merely "sealioning" you.

Lowe titles his post, "The Usefulness of Rebuttal," and it's clear that spending his time tilting at windmills gives him no enjoyment and won't further knowledge for his readers.

This isn't to say that debunking some of the nonsense couldn't have some value -- but it's more than a one-man job, and would require a format more suited to the task, such as Alex Epstein's energy talking points, which deals with myriad contemporary misconceptions about energy and climate.

The answer to the Gish Gallop is not to gallop faster, or in the swamp of, say, a debate format that a dishonest or obtuse person can game with low cunning: It's to supply whatever answers a reasonable person might need, and at a time and in a format that lend themselves to rational examination, evaluation, and integration.

Dealing with a Gish Gallop is worse than the waste of time it already is: You are helping the irrational win and missing a chance to build a positive case for your own side. I, for one, am grateful that this is what Lowe has been doing throughout the pandemic.

-- CAV