Both Sides - SMBC Theater

I keep seeing the same general sentiment through these types of threads, something in the nature of "if the scientists are so sure they're right, they shouldn't be afraid of mis-information because only their data will stand up to scrutiny." The fact that Rogan has these types of people on his show is not the issue, and just as you say it's fine to interview them. The issue is that he tends to take a backseat and let the interviewee make whatever claims without any push-back[1]. Simply having an episode with a pro-vaccine person and another episode with an anti-vaccine person is implying that both viewpoints are equal, which in my opinion they are not. HN is sort of unique in that likely a large portion of the user base is interested in researching claims more in depth after hearing them; I would wager that your average person does not do this and will likely take what they hear at face value. If they did that due diligence for any claim, it's unlikely we would have such a large list of "common knowledge" that is actually false.[2] W/R/T Rogan specifically, his show reminds me of a decade-old Youtube comedy video, "Both Sides" by SMBC Theater[3]. In it, the show host organizes a debate between a Caltech Biologist, and a "Scientator" from the "Christ Rode a Dinosaur and I Have Pictures Institute," another debate between an MD and a man who believes all ailments can be cured by sticking steak knives in your eyes, and a final debate between an actual journalist and the host's in

It doesn't have much to do with age. It's the same problem as the "both sides" approach to anything [0] ("my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge"). This inherently just moves the problem to decide who's informed (or equivalently what's the required level of "informedness"). Many jurisdictions routinely suspend people's voting rights. Due process and all. Of course when it comes to giving them back after they've served their sentence the process somehow slows down. So I'm fully aware of the downsides of this. I'm not advocating for doing that to any concrete group of people, I'm advocating for working on this problem. It's not the first time this has come up in history, nor the last. The long term solution is education. Yes. Is there even a short-term solution? Maybe not. However I'm interested in the details of best arguments for and against. And I'm not convinced at all that just because someone is older than X years they now have to be "trusted". After all we should protect elderly people from bad information too, they seem to live their second childhood. [0] ▶ this video

>The problem with giving "both sides" of an issue equal time is that it can legitimize completely indefensible positions And here's the comedy sketch: ▶ this video