Evidence shows that shoving data in peoples’ faces doesn’t work to change minds.
As a scientist heavily engaged in science communication, I’ve 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 homeopathy—and scoffed when they didn’t 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 didn’t understand the science.
People have left comments on my YouTube videos saying… well, let’s 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, I’ve found a potential strategy. And that strategy doesn’t 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.
If, big if, the people peddling the pseudoscience are engaging in good faith.
If you treat everyone you engage with as though they’re not engaging in good faith… you’re not engaging in good faith.
You’re not going to convince people who engage in bad faith anyways, so what’s the harm in doing what you can to empathize with those who are willing to listen? Are you afraid you’re going to be convinced of the wrong thing?
Because its a waste of energy.
It’s 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 that’s 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, it’s 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 that… 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.