- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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.
Fuck empathy.
The goal isn’t, and should not be, to “change their mind”. Debating them just gives these nut-cases a sense that their beliefs are in any way valid.
They can believe their own shit until they die for all I care. The point isn’t to “change” them, it’s to make them so ashamed of believing it that they shut the fuck up about it in public and thereby stop harming others or spreading it.
that’s how extremists are made. DO NOT FOLLOW THIS ADVICE. everyone deserves to be informed. i’ve done it to a few people, and they hace at least slightly changed how they view a certain topic.
I agree if people can’t discuss something in public they’ll only do so in private. With a small group. Creating an echo chamber. Contrary opinions will result in ostracization. This will eventually lead to a slow radicalization of the remaining group. They may not be as large but they’ll be much more zealous in their beliefs.
Small and zealous is far easier for authorities to deal with than numerous and spreading…
a few extremists in a smaller echo chamber is not only preferable, but also far easier for authorities to ultimately handle.
Treating these idiots like the nut jobs they are at worst creates another Jonestown.
“Discussion and understanding” meanwhile creates attempted coups and riots because they suddenly think their view is “normalized”. I know which one i prefer to see in the news.
You cannot shame someone that has none.