Essay:Should we let the dogs bark and pay no heed to their yelping?

Is it better to state the truth and not bother rebutting opponents? Spinoza once said, "Indeed, just as light defines itself and darkness, so truth sets the standard for itself and falsity." RationalWiki devotes most of its writing to refuting "woo" rather than putting forward its own claims about what is truth.

It undoubtedly makes one feel good to have companionship in making fun of "crank" beliefs and to be able to respond with a link to a RW article when one encounters people putting forth those arguments. The problem is, opponents then come here and seek to engage in dialog, and find that the community is not actually interested in engaging at length or in a very respectful way; the tone is mostly "What the hell is wrong with you?" They are deterred from staying in the discussion long enough to be convinced that their views are wrong.

It is not enough that the articles point out some reasons why opponents are wrong; people will always show up with additional arguments that haven't been addressed. The goal should be to refute those too and eventually develop a complete body of refutation. But it takes patience; one has to hear out the arguments fully before demolishing them. That requires cultivating a friendly environment where people are actually serious about their goal of truth-seeking and persuasion.

Unless one is willing to do that, one may as well live one's life letting the dogs bark and paying no heed to their yelping. RationalWiki only goes halfway in its truth-seeking, and as a result is mostly ineffective. It's good if you just want your dose of snark, but even for that there might be other places that are funnier. Encyclopedia Dramatica is pretty good, if you don't mind having potentially disturbing imagery burned into your memory.