This is evidence against the claim that debating opinions which are not widely held, or even considered “conspiracy theories”, just gives them a platform and strengthens their credibility in the eyes of the public.
I’m not sure if this really applies here, since Lab Leak was never really treated as a crazy/fringe idea among rationalists. In fact, it looks like it was the majority opinion before the debate and ACX posts.
This, and also most people on ACX respect Scott and his opinions, so if he demonstrates that he has put a lot of thought into this, and then he makes a conclusion, it will sound convincing to most.
Basically, we need to consider not just how many people believe some idea, but also how strongly. The typical situation with a conspiracy theory is that we have a small group that believes X very strongly, and a large group that believes non-X with various degrees of strength, from strongly to almost zero. What happens then is that people with a strong belief typically don’t change their mind, while people with zero belief (who until now just took one side by default, because they never heard about the other) will flip a coin. Therefore the typical outcome is that the conspiracy theory becomes better known.
Or maybe the zero belief is not literally “never heard about theory” but “never met an actual person who also believes the theory” and as the debate starts, they find each other, and thus the conspiracy theory becomes socially acceptable (even being in a minority feels very different from being alone).
When the conspiracy theory is wildly known, and everyone already knows a few believers, most damage was already done.
Rationalist-adjacent community is often the opposite of the wider society, in that the mainstream beliefs are low-status, and we need to be reminded that they sometimes actually exist for a good reason. There is always this suspicion that people who have mainstream beliefs are simply too stupid to think independently. Therefore a debate will improve the case of the mainstream belief.
I’m not sure if this really applies here, since Lab Leak was never really treated as a crazy/fringe idea among rationalists. In fact, it looks like it was the majority opinion before the debate and ACX posts.
This, and also most people on ACX respect Scott and his opinions, so if he demonstrates that he has put a lot of thought into this, and then he makes a conclusion, it will sound convincing to most.
Basically, we need to consider not just how many people believe some idea, but also how strongly. The typical situation with a conspiracy theory is that we have a small group that believes X very strongly, and a large group that believes non-X with various degrees of strength, from strongly to almost zero. What happens then is that people with a strong belief typically don’t change their mind, while people with zero belief (who until now just took one side by default, because they never heard about the other) will flip a coin. Therefore the typical outcome is that the conspiracy theory becomes better known.
Or maybe the zero belief is not literally “never heard about theory” but “never met an actual person who also believes the theory” and as the debate starts, they find each other, and thus the conspiracy theory becomes socially acceptable (even being in a minority feels very different from being alone).
When the conspiracy theory is wildly known, and everyone already knows a few believers, most damage was already done.
Rationalist-adjacent community is often the opposite of the wider society, in that the mainstream beliefs are low-status, and we need to be reminded that they sometimes actually exist for a good reason. There is always this suspicion that people who have mainstream beliefs are simply too stupid to think independently. Therefore a debate will improve the case of the mainstream belief.
This is a very good point.