- cross-posted to:
- science@mander.xyz
- cross-posted to:
- science@mander.xyz
Evidence shows that shoving data in peoplesā faces doesnāt work to change minds.
As a scientist heavily engaged in science communication, Iāve seen it all.
People have come to my public talks to argue with me that the Big Bang never happened. People have sent me handwritten letters explaining how dark matter means that ghosts are real. People have asked me for my scientific opinion about homeopathyāand scoffed when they didnāt like my answer. People have told me, to my face, that what they just learned on a TV show proves that aliens built the pyramids and that I didnāt understand the science.
People have left comments on my YouTube videos sayingā¦ well, letās not even go there.
I encounter pseudoscience everywhere I go. And I have to admit, it can be frustrating. But in all my years of working with the public, Iāve found a potential strategy. And that strategy doesnāt involve confronting pseudoscience head-on but rather empathizing with why people have pseudoscientific beliefs and finding ways to get them to understand and appreciate the scientific method.
You must log in or register to comment.
If, big if, the people peddling the pseudoscience are engaging in good faith.
If you treat everyone you engage with as though theyāre not engaging in good faithā¦ youāre not engaging in good faith.
Youāre not going to convince people who engage in bad faith anyways, so whatās the harm in doing what you can to empathize with those who are willing to listen? Are you afraid youāre going to be convinced of the wrong thing?
Because its a waste of energy.
Itās a waste of energy to empathize with people? Science apparently disagrees.
The thing with reactionaries and other fascist-adjacent modes of thought, is they fill the public discourse with nonsense and demand that they be taken seriously. For in-person conversation, empathy is important, but there is no mandate to humor obvious bullshit in a public forum.
I think thatās the key difference. Trying to argue online is almost certainly a waste of time and effort 99% of the time, as bots and trolls make up so much of social media posts and comments (on controversial topics/people, that is). In-person interactions are completely different and I think acting in good faith and giving folks the benefit of the doubt in that context is worth the effort.
No, itās a waste of energy to try to change the stance of people who need years of therapy to undo the brainwashing that led them to believe such garbage.
I know a professor who was kind to a crackpot. Talked to him a bunch, explaind stuff, corrected him where he was wrong. Should not have done thatā¦ The crackpot writes a crazy book with just made up shit, and thanking the professor for helping with the book in the book for everyone to see.
I think the premise of the article is generally true, but it can go sideways.
Instead, I try to practice whatās known as radical empathy. This is empathy given to another person without any expectation of receiving it back in return. I try to see the world through someone elseās eyes and use that to find common ground.
Thatās just empathy. How is basic empathy radical?
well i guess heās saying that normally empathy requires reciprocity
I have no idea where the author got that idea. No common definition involves anything like reciprocity and I canāt think of a single example where that would be a requirement for someone to be empathic.
iāve heard the opposite, āthey hate us so why should we care about them!ā
so i imagine from something like thatā¦That is a lack of empathy.
Itās radical because fewer and fewer people are empathetic these days.
I donāt know the origins of that term, but maybe āunconditional empathyā would be a better way of thinking about it? Like, I will empathise with you even if you arenāt prepared to do the same, - and wonāt be withdrawn if you donāt treat me with empathy.
A positive and useful article.
āInstead of getting into an argument, I would rather find a way to get someone to see the world the same way that I do: as a Universe filled with mystery and wonder, revealed by a powerful toolset for investigating those mysteries. I would rather people see behind the skin of science and understand, appreciate, and celebrate its soul. I believe thatās the only way to build trustāand hopefully help people listen to scientists when it really matters.ā
Beyond pseudoscience, it appears that the approach can also be used to address so many of the human habits that contribute to climate change: cars (especially ICE powered), eating meat, etc.
The other thing the op-ed mentioned is empathy. A lot of the time, people have reasons for seeking pseudoscience.
Weāre gonna have a hard time addressing deniers if we donāt have a reasonable conversation about why theyāre scared of progressive policy.
the persistence of pseudoscience means that we have a lot of work to do in making science more relevant and vital in peoplesā lives. If the public distrusts science, we need to find ways to earn that trust. Itās easy to sit back, make fun of pseudoscientific beliefs, and sneeringly mock the people who believe them. Itās also cheap and lazy, and it will probably do more damage in the long run.
This is bang on.
As delightful as dunking can be, it supports the victimhood narrative that the anti-science crowd is pushing.
The op-ed doesnāt get into effective techniques to fight pseudoscience, but public sneering is clearly backfiring.
Thereās just to much money to be made arguing pseudoscience these days. Take anything that might not be 100% proven, and you get a cheerleader claiming some āunderdogā perspective. https://www.wweek.com/news/2024/01/02/robert-f-kennedy-jr-to-hold-presidential-campaign-fundraiser-in-lake-oswego/
I think itās important to note the distinction that heās out in real-life public meatspace OR well-identified as who he is, and presumably his interrogators are as well, online. (With the exception of YouTube which he ādoesnāt want to talk aboutā) This approach is wonderful for those things. Empathy good, yes, everyone can benefit from trying to be more empathetic usually.
But it doesnāt cover all online interactions. There are times when dunking and mockery are not only appropriate but helpful. Can you imagine trying to be empathetic in r/the_donald? I mean, obviously they got banned for being nazis and threatening murder all the time, but hey - for whatever the current equivalent is, good luck. If you can maintain an empathetic approach in those contexts, youāre a better man than I, Gunga Din.
Hereās a cool trick. You can say downright awful things about someone, but you add āBless their heartā to the end and you sound empathetic.
Nah. Iām good with mockery. Thanks.
I had to engage in a bit of it, just last Thursday.
I understand empathy when it comes to harmless remedies like homeopathy and rescue remedy, that kind of thing, but when it gets to not getting your kids vaccinated because you think theyāre poison or taking homemade colloidal silver instead of your prescribed antibiotics, thatās where I have trouble empathising.
My rule is that as long as something isnāt replacing some other medical treatment recommended by their doctor (assuming they even saw a doctor), then I donāt mind. My dad has gotten into grounding pillows, which donāt have good evidence behind them that they work, but he finds he gets better sleep. Could be placebo, I donāt care! If it works for him, thatās great. But if itās replacing a treatment recommended by a doctor or something then I would have an issue.
I think Iām more worked up about this kind of thing than most people because I have familial connections to conspiracy theories š but I guess thatās one or many steps beyond pseudoscience, which is what the article is talking about
People who didnāt reason themselves into a position wonāt be reasoned out of it.
As much as I agree with the authorās points, it isnāt anything new. Articles have been published before about taking on a different perspective when confronting pseudoscience, such as this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5579391/
However, I still feel like both articlea donāt fully broach the deeply rooted distrust many folks have towards academia or the scientific community as a whole. And honestly, if you look at the history of unethical studies and experiments done over the years, I donāt find it that shocking that many communities are like that. To start the rabbit hole on the plethora of fucked up activities scientists of the past got up to, head on over to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation
My point is: Simply using empathy isnāt going to fix things. Itās part of the solution, but I think coupling that with better community outreach via public K-12 schools and easier to understand transparency for the average person would go a really long way over time. Just my two cents, anyway.
People have been constantly bombarded since childhood at home (family, television, internet) and/or church with the propaganda of bogus belief systems. Some places (or homes) are better than others. Others can be much worse. For example, imagine growing up in the mormon environment of Provo, Utah, or the maga environment of rural Atlanta.
Meanwhile, for one reason or another, varying from place to place, the education system has failed them, by leaning on the laziest rest point of least effort in blocks designed for fifty students at a time, such as rote memorization. See active republican sabotage of evolution, history or sex education in red states like Kansas or Florida.
Many do manage to escape this intellectual swamp, despite the peer pressure, but many donāt, and that spark comes from within. What makes the escapees tick? What makes them strive forwards, while so many others idle and stagnate?
I think we should take more decisive action against those parties that knowingly and deliberately promote pseudo-scientific attitudes with targeted misinformation in order to promote their interests. These powerful and unscrupulous players are at the heart of the problem, Iād say.
In my experience itās best to first try to understand where the person is coming from and then address the underlying issue. Often it will be an misunderstanding of scientific method, combined with general mistrust in authorities and garnished with personal anecdotal experiences.
Removed by mod
