Neil deGrasse Tyson invoked the concept of a scientific consensus while supporting vaccines in his debate with Del Bigtree. Why was his statement about how “individual scientists don’t matter” compared to scientific consensus so triggering to antivaxxers? Why do antivaxxers reject the very concept of a scientific consensus and promote a hyper-individualistic view of how science should be conducted?
COVID-19 cranks and antivaxxers John Leake and Dr. Peter McCullough are unhappy at correctly being labeled conspiracy theorists. So what does Leake do? Engage in projection, of course!
After Neil deGrasse Tyson made the mistake of debating Del Bigtree, antivaxxer Byram Bridle tries to shame Tim Caulfield into debating him, calling his refusal “disinformation.” Project much?
Astrophysicist and famed science communicator Neil deGrasse Tyson appeared on The Highwire, an antivax video podcast, to “debate” its host, antivax propagandist Del Bigtree. This incident demonstrates quite well why it is almost never a good idea for a scientist to agree to “debate” science deniers.
Having come across an example of how antivaxxers think that vaccine advocates think from Alex Berenson and Madhava Setty, I had one thought myself: Project much?
