If an argument lasts more than 5 minutes

[BootinUp]

both sides are wrong.

This and other great observations by Neil Degrasse Tyson

[Rainforestgoddess]

1. Interesting that he makes the same observation

As Dawkins!11! Did, but didn't experience the same vitriol.

Sorry, edited to add the point about how Islam squelched Arabic science, and the comparison of numbers of Jewish Nobel laureates vs Muslim laureates.

[HuckleB]

2. Well, NDT is certainly facing plenty of silly vitriol from the anti-GMO crowd.

[Rainforestgoddess]

3. True. But he must have anticipated

That reaction. There's no reasoning them, climate change deniers, or antivaxxers either.

[HuckleB]

4. All too true.

[uriel1972]

5. I can't agree,

If one side is in possesion of the facts and the other is without evidence, but refuses to admit this, then the argument can go on forever. Why should people in possesion of the facts give up their position if the argument goes on for more than five minutes?

Just because people are obstinate in unsupported beliefs does not invalidate the position of the other side.

[LeftishBrit]

6. I disagree

Certainly this is sometimes true, and there are many many issues on which both sides are wrong; but not always.

Sometimes the facts are not yet known, and will eventually come to light, proving one side or the other right.

Sometimes arguments are not about facts but opinion or moral outlook; e.g. I consider the Thatcherite/Republican approach to poverty morally utterly wrong, but it's not a scientific fact that can be proved. One might be able to prove that a particular policy will increase poverty, but some people will then argue that this is not a bad consequence if it increases the freedom of rich people to make more money/ that the fear of poverty increases competition and 'productivity'/ that it's not the government's job to reduce poverty/etc.

Sometimes paranoia overrides factual evidence as in the vaccination debates.

[SheilaT]

7. I not only disagree, but I think

the five minute limit is really stupid. Especially if the argument is in any way complex, and a lot of information needs to be presented to make the case clear. Plus, there would be times when it's not as simple as one side is completely right and the other side is completely wrong, and both need to present their information fully.