He could be completely wrong on something and invite someone with conflicting views and give them a platform for hours. He doesn't trample all over them in the moment like so many others.
I would make the distinction that he is perhaps bad at science, rather than anti-science. He just wants to discuss it, which is the format he prefers to work in.
As for a debate not showing the truth, I'll agree. However, I'll also say that there has been a lot of confindence lost in some authority figures who stated things as fact when they should have been using weaker statements like, "we believe" or "we don't know, but do this just in case". Sure, it could be said it was politicians making these statements, but they were buttressed by fame seeking scientists. (on the topic of covid)
The government and their scientists never admit they were wrong, everything is always stated as fact. Best example of the this is the food pyramid. They just roll out a new one and pretend the previous one never existed.
I don't know where we stand right now with regard to either the food pyramid or covid, except to get the new boosters as they come out on the latter.
Likewise, it's easier to deceive somebody in verbal formats than in print. Canadian pollster Frank Graves of Ekos Research tracks misinformation with a "misinformation index" where he polls people about provably false statements. People who primarily consume audio or video news, rather than reading it, across all political lines, reliably score lower on this "misinformation index".[2]
[1][2] I'm making this stuff up and if this was a verbal debate you probably wouldn't know that, whereas in this format you can trivially Google these things. Graves does write about Misinformation Index but has not done anything about print vs audio.
And we're supposed to trust politicians, policy makers, Youtube/Reddit moderators, etc to be able to decipher this stuff when enforcing their interpretations? Just "trust the science"?
This Elon Musk?
But musk doesn't play in the science publication sphere. To him, that sphere is basically just a corrupt system for perpetuating power structures and it's easier for him to talk shit on twitter,.
Here's a video showing Hotez in action:
Moreover, scientists debating amongst themselves is one thing for chemistry and quite another for Psychology or Anthropology or Public Health - fields that borrow credibility from the self-evident power of the scientific method to do history or philosophy or policy making.
Like most highly specialized fields, getting 100% current on the state of the art will likely take full immersion in the field and years of dedicated study. You just don't get a lot of people who spend years doing the work of becoming a PhD and don't actually, you know, get their PhD. I'm sure they exist but they're understandably going to be super rare compared to jokers who read a couple papers (if that) and decide they know "the truth".
As for who know best, I'm always skeptical of whoever is less curious, and that usually depends more on the person than the education level.