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?
It’s a waste of energy to empathize with people? Science apparently disagrees.
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.
Instead, I try to practice what’s 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 else’s eyes and use that to find common ground.
That’s just empathy. How is basic empathy radical?
I have no idea where the author got that idea. No common definition involves anything like reciprocity and I can’t think of a single example where that would be a requirement for someone to be empathic.
i’ve heard the opposite, “they hate us so why should we care about them!”
so i imagine from something like that…
A positive and useful article.
“Instead 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 that’s the only way to build trust—and hopefully help people listen to scientists when it really matters.”
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 persistence of pseudoscience means that we have a lot of work to do in making science more relevant and vital in peoples’ lives. If the public distrusts science, we need to find ways to earn that trust. It’s easy to sit back, make fun of pseudoscientific beliefs, and sneeringly mock the people who believe them. It’s 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 doesn’t get into effective techniques to fight pseudoscience, but public sneering is clearly backfiring.
I think it’s important to note the distinction that he’s 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 “doesn’t want to talk about”) This approach is wonderful for those things. Empathy good, yes, everyone can benefit from trying to be more empathetic usually.
But it doesn’t 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, you’re a better man than I, Gunga Din.
