If there's one thing decades of arguing on the Internet has taught me, it's that debate is highly overrated.

And if there's anything decades old social science research has taught me, it's the Overton Window: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

I believe that most arguing over the internet doesnt qualify as debate, and consider it somewhat of a lost skill. Critical thinking/analysis is not undertaken by most people, particularly on the internet.

Debate is a cornerstone of democracy - to take the climate change example, anyone should be able to question it, and the evidence for it should be what persuades the majority of people, leading to a decision. In these cases, debate is a very effective mechanism. Unfortunately, people don't tend to engage and debate properly.

A good, reasonably relevant read (5 min) is Isaac Asimov's A Cult Of Ignorance, which I think goes some way to explaining the lack of engagement with debating.

So, would you also agree that the existence of climate change should still be up for debate, even though there is overwhelming scientific evidence in one direction?

NB: I do not know what the scientific consensus is on cognitive differences between men and women.

Yes, because I want a place to read articles about measuring its nature, shape, and effects. I want to be able to talk about countermeasures, so I have to be able to advocate theories of detailed causes---and I need to hear the best possible arguments about why those are wrong.

I'd love to have similar conversations about how nature and nurture affect outcomes, including how race and sex tendencies are or are not swamped by a lifetime of socialization, but our society has absolutely no way to do so without hurting a lot of people. We have other good work to do, so we can defer those conversations—maybe past my lifetime. Maybe try having them in smaller settings, with a framework of trust and love?

I think that, if a random Google engineer wrote an essay about why climate change isn't real, it would be weird and inappropriate to insist something be done about it.

That's a straw man reply. You cherry picked one of the most easily defensible claims and then implied that the OP would disagree. What gives you the right to implicate them in this way? Or did I miss another post in this thread where the OP did, in fact, express skepticism of climate change?

What stops me from implicating them in this way? The OP made an unqualified assertion - "for every point" - which means it would apply even to the most extreme example.

Edit: And I didn't ask the OP if they are skeptical of climate change. I merely asked if they would be in favour of letting those that are skeptical express their opinion.

>The OP made an unqualified assertion - "for every point"

No, it is possible to defend every point imaginable. Look up "Hempel's ravens". It is trivial to generate evidence supporting or opposing any claim you like.

"Scientific consensus" is a term I dislike, as it seems more opinion-based and authoritarian, and less evidence-based.

I get what you're saying, but I don't know of a better phrase. "Whatever the most studies published in reputable journals seem to suggest" doesn't quite roll off the tongue.

>tech bros who have never taken a soft science course in their lives

Can someone here comment on the veracity of this statement? I was never smart or disciplined enough to attend college but I do have the good fortune of working with a large number of engineers. Many of them attended extremely highly ranked universities and it seems, from my talking with them on the subject of college education, that all of them took at least some introductory courses in the humanities/social sciences. Some of them are extremely well read and passionate about a number of non-science related topics. Even my coworker that attended Caltech, about as STEM focused a school as you'll find based on what I've heard, double majored in ME and History. I admit I could just be working in a unique place, but I find it hard to believe most people working in tech have no exposure to collegiate level soft science courses, or that they are singularly focused on tech related issues.

Slightly off topic but regarding the whole tech bro term, this has never really sat well with me. For one, it seems to be used to disparage a particular demographic , which I generally find uncivil, but it also doesn't seem very accurate to me, particularly in this instance. For better or worse, when I think tech bro, I usually imagine the more frat-like college educated guys flocking to tech for the pay, but probably not working in the actual tech side of things. I usually imagine more finance and biz dev types. Maybe this is equally unkind on my part. Ironically, I image those people come from a more humanities/soft sciences background.

For example, somebody detected (and published) a 53% extrasensory perception effect (ESP, predict the future), using "methodological sound" social sciences techniques, https://slate.com/health-and-science/2017/06/daryl-bem-prove....

The field is marred with systemic issues, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Replication...

> A report by the Open Science Collaboration in August 2015 that was coordinated by Brian Nosek estimated the reproducibility of 100 studies in psychological science from three high-ranking psychology journals.[35] Overall, 36% of the replications yielded significant findings (p value below .05) compared to 97% of the original studies that had significant effects. The mean effect size in the replications was approximately half the magnitude of the effects reported in the original studies.

> The same paper examined the reproducibility rates and effect sizes by journal (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology [JPSP], Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition [JEP:LMC], Psychological Science [PSCI]) and discipline (social psychology, cognitive psychology). Study replication rates were 23% for JPSP, 38% for JEP:LMC, and 38% for PSCI. Studies in the field of cognitive psychology had a higher replication rate (50%) than studies in the field of social psychology (25%).

>bunch of middle class white male tech bros who have never taken a soft science course in their lives discussing racism and sexism in tech doesn't sound very productive to me.

This is a strawman unless there is more data to back it up.

Anecdotally, I'm aware many CS bachelors have a "general education" requirement, which includes soft sciences and humanities.

Let's also not forget soft sciences are just that -- soft. They are not as scientifically rigorous as hard sciences, and face similar problems that economics does (another soft science). This includes over-simplifying with unaccountable variables and a wide-spread dissonance and lack of agreement within.