For a creationist to publicly debate a college student is to admit that his or her status is roughly on par with that of a college student. Why would any creationist do that? And I’m sure they can come up with a better excuse than “I’m afraid to lose to a student.”
Michael Behe seems to be a full professor. Has any professor ever formally debated a college student (excepting classroom instruction), in the history of academics?
And that highlights the problem: these debates are won or lost on emotion and social cues, and have little to do with truth. Certainly any scientist could win against a creationist college student on facts and reason. But that’s not what the debate will be about.
There’s no one to adjudicate the debates and declare a winner (that is, no one both sides could possibly agree on), including the scientific or Bayesian method. Because of this the progression of debating higher-level opponents (on either side) won’t work. In almost every debate both sides will declare that they have won.
Since the scientific community prides itself on its supposition that even the highest-ranked scientist could in principle be proved wrong by a student, one would expect such debates to happen now and then. Otherwise the scientific community isn’t living up to its own ethos.
I don’t have a link, but it happens all the time. A few years ago at SCSU we had a formal debate on something or other (legalization of marijuana?) that involved both professors and one or two students.
For a creationist to publicly debate a college student is to admit that his or her status is roughly on par with that of a college student. Why would any creationist do that? And I’m sure they can come up with a better excuse than “I’m afraid to lose to a student.”
Michael Behe seems to be a full professor. Has any professor ever formally debated a college student (excepting classroom instruction), in the history of academics?
The creationists are free to send college students too.
And that highlights the problem: these debates are won or lost on emotion and social cues, and have little to do with truth. Certainly any scientist could win against a creationist college student on facts and reason. But that’s not what the debate will be about.
There’s no one to adjudicate the debates and declare a winner (that is, no one both sides could possibly agree on), including the scientific or Bayesian method. Because of this the progression of debating higher-level opponents (on either side) won’t work. In almost every debate both sides will declare that they have won.
Since the scientific community prides itself on its supposition that even the highest-ranked scientist could in principle be proved wrong by a student, one would expect such debates to happen now and then. Otherwise the scientific community isn’t living up to its own ethos.
The scientific community? Not adhering to the standards of science when it might cost members status? Stop the presses![1]
[1] Or invoke whatever procedure is now used to cancel a current ongoing print run of newspapers under modern production methods.
I don’t have a link, but it happens all the time. A few years ago at SCSU we had a formal debate on something or other (legalization of marijuana?) that involved both professors and one or two students.
Perhaps we should pit college students against college students :o)