Today, attempting to change the mind of someone who holds views that aren’t backed up by scientific evidence, is difficult, if not impossible. For someone to deny climate change, the value of vaccinations, evolution, or that the earth is indeed not flat, requires a basic level of knowledge in science itself.
Lee McIntyre wrote a book entitled, “How to Talk to a Science Denier: Conversations with Flat Earthers, Climate Deniers, and Others Who Deny Reason.”
He proposes that there is a common script behind all science denial reasoning (John Cook and Stephen Lewandowsky) who are cognitive scientists and it goes like this: there are five tropes of science denial reasoning.
First, science deniers cherry pick data
Second, they believe in conspiracy theories
Third, engage in illogical reasoning
Four, they rely on fake experts and denigrate real experts; and,
Five, they claim that science has to be perfect in order to be credible.
A study in Nature Human Behavior (June 2019), vindicated the model. It’s called technique rebuttal and cites empirical evidence to show that it could be effective in convincing science deniers to give up their beliefs.
How it works is that one must simply understand the five tropes and learn how to push back with logic and rationality. Asking a flat earther or climate denier for evidence that proves their beliefs, which has then been corroborated and reaffirmed through the scientific community is the first means of verifying what it is they believe. Unfortunately, usually this results in that individual becoming offensive as they cannot provide any evidence of their assertions.
Almost always they, in turn, will say something illogical or produce a ‘fake’ expert. In turn, you can then question their assertion by using the fake evidence against the assertion.
Most scientists, at least 97% of them, test their biases against the evidence. They can also provide substantive evidence about their hypothesis as this is a requirement to the proving of a hypothesis. It is a requisite component of the scientific methodology, as is peer review and replication.
Those without any scientific understanding or education live inside a kind of hermetically sealed box where the evidence can’t get to them. They live inside an echo chamber. That is the exact opposite of a scientific attitude.
Harvard Magazine produced a really interesting article entitled, “Why Some Citizens Reject Science” (Sept-Oct. 2021)
In it, Daniel Oberhaus, the author, asked Naomi Oreskes a professor of science at Harvard why scientific denialism is so rampant in America during the pandemic.
“I think people became very aware during the pandemic how egregious science denial is because it was a question of life and death,” she says. “But I think a lot of people still don’t fully understand how broad and persistent it is.”
Studies from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Pew Research Center show public attitudes about science have barely changed at all over the past 50 years: ”Our perception that there’s a crisis in science is not supported by the data.”
Instead, she claims that the data reveals a persistent divide between the two-thirds of Americans who trust science and those who do not. Religion plays a huge role here. Among the religious, especially Evangelicals, science is incompatible with their cherished beliefs about God. ”What we see here is that the rejection of science in these areas is not because the science is too uncertain or otherwise inadequate, it’s because the science implies something these people don’t want to accept as true.”
She explains further, “These people don’t reject science because they don’t have enough facts. They reject science because they think it clashes with their values or ideology.”
Her final statement was, “So rather than being afraid of our emotions, we should embrace them. That’s how we can reach people on these issues.”
Quotes were published in the print edition of the September-October 2021 issue (Volume 124, Number 1), under the headline “The Clash of Science and Ideology.”
Knowledge requires the collection, analysis, validation, and testing of information. It requires verification, replication, peer review, and the ability to confirm the assertions made in one’s hypothesis.
Unfortunately, that is not something that science deniers are ever willing to take part in.
I, for one, see no value in arguing facts. They are facts because they have been proven. Alternately, belief is unproven, and cannot be proven, therefore is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Ciao…
Leave a Reply