How to Talk to a Science Denier

A local library had a cart with free books, which I noted was a thing these days for NYPL. This one had multiple copies of "uncorrected page proof" copies, which sometimes winds up on the nearest library's free cart, but this was a case of multiple copies of different books. The subject book, now out for real, was one of these books. Here are multiple reviews. 

How to Talk to a Science Denier: Conversations with Flat Earthers, Climate Deniers, and Others Who Defy Reason.  I found various good things in it though was not interested enough to read through the whole thing.   The reviews cover much of this ground. 

For instance, there are various factors involved in science denial: cherry-picking evidence, belief in conspiracy theories, reliance on fake experts (and the denigration of real experts), logical errors, and setting impossible expectations for what science can achieve.

[These are general concerns in various respects, in part since humans are not scientific minded robots. We have some design fails.  One example is a blog often noting court opinion analysis is really not important, the results are.  But, then, apparently how Kennedy in a purple prose way badly defended gay rights.]

The title is suggestive.  Yes, the author thinks "talking" helps. He [a research fellow at the Center for Philosophy and History of Science at Boston University] rejects some earlier accounts that trying to convince deniers would simply be counterproductive in each case, that they will just bury into their positions even harder.  There are ways, he says, to combat things here.  

A basic thing is to understand your opposition. Why denial?  It is often a coping mechanism to deal with a scary world or to fit evidence into a certain ideology.  Having "secret knowledge" also might make you feel special.  It often is tied to a specific "identity," which is often but not always (GMOs, some anti-vaxxers) conservative in nature.  

[It is hard to suppose that liberals cannot be science denials. I know liberals as a whole are pro-science, but they also often are more about equality, against corporate power, and so on.  Denial can seep in here, including conspiracy theories and fears of certain science that can become extreme.]

The author suggests a compassionate, engaging approach. Listen.  See what their beliefs are and what would allow them to change their mind. Help them out with such things as charts, graphs, and friendly conversations about basic facts.  Help promote basic science knowledge, and flag not just facts, but techniques used to mislead.  Like the debate book, education is important here.

And, be honest -- admitting we do not know the answers, but that should not be used crudely, in irrational ways against science, can help build trust in the end.  You should use inoculation (guarding against the future), intervention (dealing with current problems), and acting overturning belief.  

This is all difficult in the real world.  Some people (the book makes some suggestive implications "denial" as a whole overlaps -- such as white nationalists, but ultimately pulls back to science)  just seem like lost causes. They can be be offensive (being wrong and an asshole about it is so charming).  And, you have to be skillful.  Debaters of creation scientist, like atheists who debate Christians, have to have special skills. 

Over the years, I have tried to directly engage with certain people on blogs, answering their arguments. This is often a tiresome thing since unreason is so much easier.  You don't have to do careful research and phrasing, which can take a lot of time and effort.  Nonetheless, I did (and to an extent still do) feel it useful (or at least it pleases me, also allowing me to put out my own views) to directly respond to people in detail.  

And, I try (though it is sometimes not easy) to avoid simply sneering at people.  I am no saint, but I don't actually find that a pleasant thing to do on a basic level.  Again, I realize my limitations. On Twitter, I do a lot of grievance tweeting.  I often don't put out a "you can engage him" vibe.  I do try repeatedly to show nuance.  I do try also to put out information without a heavy handed agenda.  Up to a point. 

And, yes, I think science denial overlaps with other things, especially since we are often in some sense talking about social science anyhow.  So, the book can have broad value.