I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with using "gaslighters" as the term. VERY few people online seem to have a grasp of what gaslighting actually is, and when we want to describe dishonest/disruptive interlocutors, better terminology already exists.<p>As a headline I feel like that's easy to ignore or deride, when it makes a good point which reflects the general consensus in academia and beyond.<p>Don't. Feed. The. Trolls.
Agree other comments, it's not gaslighting. Knowing what terms mean is sort of important.<p>As for out there and up a tree, if there are facts, they are always welcome. However much of it often isn't.<p>I'd say one of the better bits of advice is ...<p><i>"Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."</i> -- Mark Twain
Perhaps we could bring in some conventions from honor duels to help level the playing field?<p>Alice thinks Bob has slighted her honor, so Alice challenges Bob to a duel (to first blood, the death, whatever). Bob looks like a sore loser and coward if he backs down, but on the balancing side, Bob gets to pick the date and method of the duel.<p>Let's convert this into an academic debate based on the article.<p>Alice thinks Bob's claims regarding the COVID-19 vaccine are wrong, so she challenges him to a debate so she can prove that COVID-19 does in fact make you get mind control from 5G (or whatever conspiracy theory). Bob can choose not to entertain the motion, and his opponents get to claim they are 'just asking questions'. But if Bob accepts, he gets to stipulate that the debate take place on X date and in Y format, so he can choose to say "in 3 weeks, over written communication" which can help curb Alice's desire to 'win' by throwing around so many claims in such rapid fire fashion, there is no opportunity for Bob to properly address them without looking nit-picky or running out of debate time.
I find it appalling that an editor of Science is basically writing an opinion article advocating character assassination and trying to pass it off as “science”.
"a controversy surrounding an invitation to prominent vaccine scientist Peter Hotez to debate anti-vax charlatan and spoiler presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr"<p>Quite the unbiased opening... a close relative of a beloved President, son of a former Attorney General and also candidate for President, is dismissed as a 'spoiler'?<p>And what would his political stances matter in a question of science?<p>This is not good journalism...