Semantics is key it's true. Science is a pretty big umbrella these days (an understatement) so it's wise sometimes to differentiate Science from science, "science", & indeed scientism. Otherwise you're talking about something very close to a new religion.
@@myfrequencies1912 Originally scientism simply meant "science is the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values." It has more recently been co-opted by science deniers as a convenient way to quickly reject the science that doesn't fit with their worldview. Beats having to come up with actual evidence for their own position, I guess.
We should, but it'll change nothing, I'm afraid - flatearthers will simply insist that they are the ones who understand the "facts" and the rest of the unwashed masses are just ignorant/brainwashed/paid agents of NWO.
As someone who used to run with the conspiracy crowd, I have to tell you: The more convinced you are that there's someone laughing at you behind your back, the more convinced you are that everything SOMEONE says is a lie. A.G.
This is why, as difficult as it may be, any possibility of changing minds rests upon expressing sympathy and respect. Condemnation and ridicule just makes matters worse.
@@MendTheWorld Agreed, but now there are so many polarized people with completely differing interpretations of things that employ sympathy and empathy, and there are also many that ridicule and condemn all across any kind of spectrum that it is not clear who to listen to, and our own cognitive bias probably influences who we start to listen to because sympathy and respect are no longer clues as to who you should listen to, and condemnation and ridicule are no longer reliable deterrents.
It's all very confusing, I agree, but the foundation for SHARED BELIEF is trust and respect. It's impossible to persuade others with facts alone if they don't trust that you respect or understand them as people. That doesn't mean you have to agree with them, but you can't mock or insult them. The partisan divide is already there. It's been nurtured and reinforced for decades. I'm talking about the only way to overcome it.
Of course is a lie who’s those scientists who all the advertisements are referring too for example scientists provide a brilliant study thank you for bs
One thing I noticed about your success stories which lines up with my own experience is that they weren't just in person, but one on one. The few successes I had were one on one where the conversation was kept focused and we addressed one issue at a time. In groups, even when it's two people trying to convince one denier, splitting the deliberate direction prevents progress.
Very good point. Group discussions can easily lead to a “Gish Gallop”, Where it’s very difficult to stay focused on topic. Face-to-face, one on one also provides the opportunity to convey sincerity _and_ empathy, which provide an essential gateway for breaking down belief silos.
Why even call it a denier? If one is not comfortable with science? Science makes a lot of mistakes. Science at one point had agreed to convince women to smoke cigarette during pregnancy, to later find out was the worst thing for the fetus. Science is the progress of the minds. I am skeptic of all what mankind does. Not all have good intentions, some have agendas, some are motivated by greed, status, wealth, power. No one can guarantee science without proving mankind has some dark intentions. We underestimate the intentions. Men lie, a lot, for many reasons. So unless you can totally prove me that men do not lie the fact that I question science does not make me a denier?Does it?
You are definitely right that incomplete information and misinformation can be used to mislead people, and that leads to real harm. But we live in a world where we sometimes have to choose one action or another even if nothing has been totally metaphysical proven. That's what science is for. Gathering all the information we can from experts, making choices based on what that information says, and if later information shows that you were wrong, making different decisions in the future. That's science. Rejecting all information because it's possible to be wrong doesn't help with those decisions.
In such cases it may be perceived as a threat, or an embarrassment to alter one's position while in any kind of audience of more than one-on-one. That could be somewhat the case when in the presence of two people trying to convince them that the scientific evidence is worth believing in. I also would like to know why some people end up feeling so threatened by such scientific evidence. What does this rejection provide for them?
"How to Talk to a Science Denier" Easy -- don't discuss "science". You can discuss astronomy, geology, physics, geography, biology, even dendrochronology, but don't discuss "science".
Wait…. They’ve already turned the word “liberal” into an expletive, and now you’re willing to give up the word “science” as well? No matter. I understand the cynical perspective of your comment, and agree that “science” is probably a “trigger word” for some religious zealots, that would shut down any possibility of rational conversation, but there _are_ theists for whom science is fully compatible with their worldview (e.g. methodological naturalism) and there’s little to be gained by coddling fundamentalist extremists. (I just _had_ to state the obvious, even if your comment was in jest.).
@@MendTheWorld "you’re willing to give up the word “science” as well? " The proper use of "science" is a category or container. It makes no sense to say something like "science says..." because science is not an actor. It is a container and it contains a great many things; some of those things are disputed whether to be there (psychology) whereas other things, the "hard sciences" indisputably belong in that container (geology for instance). However, many people use it as a synonym for *religion* (which also is just a category or container). "I believe in Science!" and it is often capitalized when used in this manner. What can be entertaining in such instances is to find out how much (or little) this person knows about the thing about which he proclaims belief.
I am an ex Science Denier. I believed in flat earth. The lot. I now fight against it whilst trying to learn and use my previous thought processes to help get though to other science deniers.
1) A naive or childish world view. 2) Attempting to gain some form of mental control over complex matters. 3) Fear, confusion, having an incomplete understanding of things. 4) Having been actively misguided and being kept in that state for power or profit. 5) Rebellion against the system and a desire for exclusivity. 6) The fear of losing exclusivity and the trauma of having to dismantle your own beliefs, especially if you know you have been conned or lied to.
@@TorianTammas Hi Torrian. These are not 'ideas' these are scientific facts. I got them from science books and from organisations like NASA and NOAA. Where do you get your 'ideas' from? Maybe you should start with 'facts' instead?
I agree from personal experience with your assertion that science deniers change their minds after meeting a trusted person with knowledge of the subject. This does have a caveat. You can’t change the mind of someone who knows their beliefs are irrational, but where the emotional reward for feeling relevant and part of a group is stronger than their desire for factual knowledge. Flat Earth is a good example of where this type of denier is common.
I debate a lot of science deniers who are intentionally, professionally dishonest, but their arguments and misconceptions are widely held by and agreed upon by much of the audience, so it's always effective to understand even the most dishonest of science deniers because they are expressing something honest people think is real.
@@charlesnelson5187 but people always have an alternative explanation for the facts. They acknowledge climate change, but say it's just part of the natural cycle
@@charlesnelson5187 Can you explain the difference between Werther, local climate and global climate. If you find this answer then you understand what is at stake.
@@TorianTammas There is no such thing as 'global climate'. Maybe English is not your first language? In which case good effort but please try and express rational thoughts.
@@SnakeWasRight Well maybe your explanation is an 'alternative' explanation for the facts. We know that the Vikings colonised Greenland in the 9th century and were driven out by the 11th. So maybe it is part of the natural cycle...no?
At 22:22 "If I could learn how to talk to a Flat Earther I could learn how to talk to a Climate Denier, etc." - I've been talking to Flat Earthers since 2015 for exactly this reason! Good to know someone else has the same idea, but I am not sure if I have ever convinced anyone. Sometimes they just disappear off the radar and I wonder if that means they have moved their position and don't want to admit it, or they are just fed up with talking to me. One thing I have learnt is that, if you are using a content driven approach, it just as important that you understand the most common pseudo science arguments used by the group you are going up against as it is that you understand the history of the real science that they are denying. An excellent example of this was the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. When I heard that debate had been arranged I was horrified! I thought Bill Nye would crash and burn because he didn't know the YEC arguments. But when I saw the debate I knew that Bill Nye had been coached by someone who knew YEC arguments backwards. I found out later he had gone to Eugenie Scott and the NCSE! Probably the best people in the world to prepare him for that debate! Pretty sure I could help someone planning a content driven approach to Flat Earthers, though others out there have even more experience than me. BTW, Flat Earth isn't the most out there pseudo cosmology. There are "Concave Earthers" for example, people who believe that the Earth is a hollow sphere, and that we live on the *inside* !!! There is supposed to be a church in the US that mandates that belief!
Interesting comment. So WHY are you trying to convert flat-earthers, or debate them ? I might find it interesting to explore their thinking, and maybe see how they respond to contrary evidence, but ... I really don't care that they (like most) hold unsupportable views and beliefs.
@@stevealexander8010 Well, partly because they are a test case, they may not be the lowest hanging fruit, but they are close to the lowest. By lowest hanging fruit I mean in the sense that it is easy to show them evidence that they are wrong. You can't show a Young Earth Creationist a film of all of their ancestors going back to the LCA with Chimps, you need to show them something like the mutation that deactivated the GULO gene and made us susceptible to scurvy. Whereas with Flat Earthers you can show them a sunset and ask them where exactly is the Sun? Because if it is shining down on clouds in the Tropics how is it possible that you can see it shining up at the underneath of them at sunset? So it should be easy. It isn't, but it should be! I think we *can* say that it is easier. Some senior Flat Earthers have recanted over the years (as far as I am aware, none of them because they talked to me). My thinking (echoed by Lee in this video, it's the first time I've heard anyone come up with the same idea) was "If we can't reach Flat Earthers we can't reach any science deniers! And if we can then just maybe we can learn something that will help us reach the ones that do real harm, like the anti-vaxers and the Climate Emergency deniers." But there is another reason I tend to focus on them specifically. It's my wheelhouse. I am a Physics graduate, and whilst I am not a professional scientist I do read a lot of science books and articles. Astronomy is a particular passion for me and it is from Astronomy that the original ground based proofs of the Earth's spherical shape came. I know that history in quite a lot of detail. And in general I talk to people who hold anti-science beliefs because its fun! Sometimes I learn stuff, like for example I was talking to a Moon Hoaxer and he raised an objection to me regarding the atmosphere breathed by the Astronauts. He said humans can't breath oxygen for the time they say it took them to get to the Moon and back because pure oxygen is a poison, you will die in about 24 hours. So I looked it up, and he was correct, however astronauts have atmospheres of about 30-35% Earth's atmospheric pressure, and at that pressure it is not dangerous.
@@k_tell First step: Infiltrate group 'on the spectrum', "flat earth believers", post talk/opinion on how you think earth flat, attempt to increase levels of ridicule about idiots who actually seem to think world flat. Next step: confuse these flat earth idiots with 'climate deniers', who 'deny "science". Then, add in anti vaxers, fake moon landings, WT7, conspiricy freaks. Try and give lectures to people who have not done a course in psychology, or do not receive any money from left wing social science think tanks. ... Tell them flat earthers, climate deniers, anti vaxers, fake moon landings are all wrong and don't know what they're talking about... ie. link "climate change deniers" to all the other idiots out there. Go home from dinner party/disco/wedding, knowing you have converted another sap to your opinion. Give yourself a home-made gold star andstick it in your notebook.
You guys, They don't care if the earth is flat or round,. It's not about that... that isn't the point, They just want power and control through any means possible.....
@@skylark1250 That would be education. It doesn’t always take though. Think back to high school. Because high school never ends.....
3 года назад+7
This is why it's so important to keep Good Tone™ when debating online, provided that your actual goal is to persuade them. Your arguments might not be enough on their own, but a person that continously encounters respect will give respect back, and part of that respect is to listen.
This is a very good point, so I feel I need to acknowledge it with more than just a "Thumbs Up". Trust is the foundation for most of our shared beliefs. And the relevant pragmatic issue is, "Whom do we trust". Trust is something that must be earned. It cannot be demanded, and it's based on more than just an acknowledgment of qualifications or social status. Trust is based on a sense of partnership... and shared humanity. Most importantly, trust is also a product of mutual respect. By applying empathy and sympathy, it's possible to treat even the most offensive, uninformed people with a degree of fundamental respect. If you can't muster that, then there's no hope of persuasion. If a person feels you respect them, however, you're more than halfway home in persuading them, facts being largely irrelevant to this process. I haven't heard of "Good Tone", but it sounds interesting and worth pursuing. I'll "look it up!"
I think one of the things we don't talk about enough is how people decide whom to believe and whom not to, and why. What's the process by which I decide that this person is trustworthy and this other person is not?
As a teacher, I might have an unruly group in the playground that would not go to class when the bell rang. I found that a mass appeal failed, so I would then direct an instruction towards a single student (usually the most rowdy), get their personal attention, and then issue a direct instruction. When they moved, redirect to the next. This was the result of reading some research that indicated each group divided the importance of what you were saying by the number of people present, meaning your words had say a 1 in 40 chance of achieving an impact. Hence, a personal one-on-one approach worked better. Others, when they saw movement, followed like sheep.
Well since everyone seems to be shooting down RI in the comments, and while I can't wait for them to get back in person, I'm a huge fan of this video and all the videos they release on RUclips and I think they deserve some support for bringing interesting discoveries and ideas to the public in convenient lectures like this.
RI shouldn't provide a platform for a philosopher who's just trying to sell his book. He pretends to understand science denial, then explains it with what is at best an untested hypothesis. And he pretends to be the guy who came up with the hypothesis.
@@sachamm I didn't hear him give credit, and there is certainly no evidence behind it. I doubt the hypothesis. I've been dealing with science deniers, especially antivaxxers, for over four decades. It's cyclical. The numbers increase, then tend to decrease. The same ease of communication that allows science deniers to share their views allows everybody to share views. The current antivaxxers, by the way, are qualitatively much different than most of those historically. Most deniers used to be new age types, who were into all sorts of alternative medicines. A lot of them today just don't trust the government. And if it has been the government's intent to mismanage the information, it succeeded beyond its wildest dream. I know people who would never have considered not vaccinating their children, who are now resisting getting the Covid vaccine. In fact, this guy strikes me as a science denier himself. He doesn't understand science, so he puts it on a pedestal.
@@sachamm What I know is that you obviously have a better understanding of science than other commenters here. Maybe we aren't talking about the same thing. I was talking about first, the observation that science denial is increasing, and second that it is explained by increasing communication via new technologies, adding to the echo chamber effect among flat earther types. He is far too confident about both points. And what did you hear him refer to to explain either? I heard no attribution, just his interpretation of events that are probably better explained by polarized political views that have taken most of the western world by storm. I've dealt with experts, both real and pretend since the 1970s. I looked into this guy a little, and I'd lay odds he's a pretend.
It also means that : if you fail to change some people around you with the facts when you are an expert, it means these people don't trust you as a person.
A different way to look at is that they aren't good at understanding the opposing argument. Trust is a really important factor, but a lot of times the same reference paper being used as evidence of one point can be used as a reference to the contrary. The same research article which shows that side effects from MMR vaccines are incredibly rare (less than 1 in 10000) can also be used to show that the odds of a side-effect from that vaccine are higher than the odds of contracting the illness itself.
@Vlasko60 Look up the rate of severe adverse events from a measles vaccine, it's roughly 5 per 100k. Then look up the number of measles cases is the US in the last 20 years (1 per 100k).
@Vlasko60 Yes, I saw that exact argument happen on reddit related to mandatory measles vaccinations following some outbreaks in 2019. The reasoning was basically that enough people voluntarily vaccinate against measles that mandating vaccines would statistically do more harm than good. A related analogy might be parents understanding that having a strong military and police force is why they are safe, yet not wanting their children to join the military or police out of concern for their safety.
I personally have come to the conclusion that I am wasting time from my life even trying. Facts do not work on most people who have a fundamental belief.
Perhaps there is a reason quoting facts at them doesn't work. How do they know they are, in fact, facts? They don't trust you and they don't believe you. You have to start with common ground, something you both agree on, and go from there.
@@trucid2 A good stance. Claiming the high ground and looking down will surely do you no good. It will even lead to the opposite, just like this video will. The more people are cornered, the more they will get in a defensive stance. Even labeling someone as a science denier, a very negative term, will have this effect.
@@jonathanmahoney1672 Scientists work so much with their models that they think of them as being the real world. They confuse their models with reality.
Community. To change someone's mind, you effectively may be exiling them from their whole social community. That's hard to do for the person who may want to change their mind.
I have a science degree. Once (pre Covid) I was walking through the centre of town (UK, so centre of town is a shopping centre). I did a double take as there was a bloke handing out flat earth leaflets. The shock was that they were very fancy glossy pieces of paper with nice pictures. The style was as a scientific study. Not only that but they had the massive scientific presentation board to go with it, just like a scientist would use to give a presentation. I stopped and read the board. It was very well done, as good as any scientific presentation I had ever seen. It even had a reference section. I took a leaflet to look at in depth. I think the most interesting thing might be that the bloke handing out the leaflets never spoke to me, even though everyone was just walking past and he was the only person there, as far as I could see. So what was the point? I didn't want to start the discussion as I knew i couldn't change his mind, but if he had spoken to me, I would've been interested to see what he had to say.
i met a flat earther (thankfully it was online so i didnt have to worry about holding my laughter) once and she asked me what i thought about the shape of the earth i told her i was sure that its round, geoid with slightly flattened poles and minutely bulging out equator due to the rotation of the earth but roughly a sphere she was NOT PLEASED and posted a reply saying that i am a 'sheep' and i just believe everything the mainstream media tells me i tried being patient and just asked her to change my mind with some of the arguments from their side and she wrote stuff like "gravity is faked" i told her that for the sake of argument, i will accept for a while that gravity is fake and asked her what pulls things down towards the ground if gravity is out of the picture she replied that "a pull is not a force and things fall down because thats just how it is supposed to be" i then asked her why is it supposed to be like that? and she stopped replying
Have you had a conversation with someone, who later happily realised that they were incorrect, say that they were lying and not that they were simply incorrect or mistaken? This to me is chilling. Being mistaken is no crime of course, but saying that you were lying is morally problematic!
It's reciprocity. They assume they have been lied to and completely misguided, so it's fine to lie back in your face just to make you dance to their strings for a change. In the most extreme cases, they are not mistaken, they hate you deeply for being aberrant to what they believe is the truth.
@@rotwang2000 That's an interesting, if not cynical perspective. I am not saying that your wrong though. Personally I think it's due to the nature of survival in a world where lack of knowledge, particularly in work-place, could get you fired. If anyone has every worked with colleagues from India, you will have had the experience of everyone saying yes I will and no problem, when aske to do something. What you really want to hear is the truth, which at least one can work with. What you don't want is deadlines to pass and colleagues are still trying to understand how to do something they previously said no problem to. In this example it's cultural, but these folks would obviously rather risk failure, than be accused of not knowing how to do something.
Some people seem to not accept this distinction. I am careful with the labeling of liar; that means a person knew the truth but spoke something other than the truth. One must be a mind reader or have excellent evidence the liar knew the truth.
@@rotwang2000 "so it's fine to lie back in your face" While that *excuse* seems common, I do not choose to violate my principles just because you chose to violate yours (hypothetically of course).
@Matthew Morycinski " In my world, a liar is a liar, and I try to give them a wide berth." As do I; but rather often this person is your employer, your supervisor, your church leader, the neighbor across your fence.
@Vlasko60 sometimes they end up proving that the earth is in fact... a sphere. of course, they don't interpret their results this way... the morons. maybe I shouldn't call them that... idiots would be more appropriate. yeah, idiots. ...the idiots. may you go in peace.
@Vlasko60 In my experience they never offer proof of a flat Earth only "proof" that the Earth isn't a sphere, or that Space doesn't exist or that we never went to the Moon. This is because there is no evidence for a flat Earth and much evidence for a spherical Earth, that they're keen to debunk.
Is there empirical evidence beyond anecdotal that science denial is getting worse? I remember asking the late James Randi this question in the early 1990s before social media. I think the spread of disinformation is obviously much quicker and easier today, but what is the evidence that their are growing numbers of science deniers?
There are people who wouldn't believe airplanes exist even after travelling by a plane and any kind of approach trying to explain something to them is useless.
@@farvision by framing your statement like that i think it implicitly denies a persons personal experience and might put them on the defensive. It might also come off as “I have listened to everything he’s said *and agree*” which might put your credibility in question if they produce a proof of him lying. Im not sure but I think a better way to approach the issue would be to state your expertise in the subject, and propose to answer their query/proposed proof. It establishes an openness to new evidence whilst still asserting your credibility. Because hey, he might have said something wrong or lied.
I completely defend anyone's right NOT to have to deal with or interact with whomever they don't want and vice versa. This is why I strongly believe nobody should be forced into prison for more than a year. Prison is torture.
I found the best way to deal with someone who disagrees with the truth is to not try to convince them. Let the person learn it eventually so they don't have to save face. Its so hard to change your position on something if you have to admit to someone that you were wrong. So if you forget that the person you argued with disagrees with you then you can quietly change your position to the truth without the embarassment. That's how I dealt with my mother in law: I begged everyone to *_not_* defend me. Eventually she became my biggest fan.
Things to understand: People who sells unscientific believes have a very high public speaking skill and know how to command their charisma. While people who is pushed into this rabbit hole are those who usually in a desperation and open to any believes. Thus you cannot fight unscience with plain nerdy science, you fight back with even more charismatic persuasion.
Lee McIntyre’s world views come across as black and white with a “you are either with us or against us” attitude. If you question anything you are labeled a “Science Denier”. I have a master’s degree in engineering and am well aware of the scientific method, and I do not think words like “consensus” should ever be mentioned in connection with science, because science is not a debate club or a philosophy class. If things are so complex, that you need to talk about “consensus”, then it is no longer science. If the majority think the Earth is flat, is that true then? It doesn’t matter what the consensus is if someone can prove them wrong. Whether or not people are willing to look at the proof is another matter entirely, but that problem applies to both scientists and “Science Deniers” alike. I cringed when hearing a word like “conspiracies” because it is used in such a derogatory way. Is he saying that there aren’t any conspiracies in this world where people, companies, or governments never ever agree to do things hidden from public view in a way that benefits them in some way? As described in the video “The Lightbulb Conspiracy”. Of course, companies do everything they can to maximize profits - it is not a conspiracy theory, but a conspiracy fact. Just like when pharmaceutical companies are able to sell more vaccines - it is good for business. The virologists and doctors that voice their concerns against vaccinating children against covid are also labeled “Science Denier” or “anti-vaxxers” as if they are against all vaccines. It is this black and white view again. If people are invested in a theory, like when they earn their living from that theory, or they gain a sense of worth from a theory, and they are surrounded by peers (either online or physically) that share their beliefs, then it is next to impossible to change their view on that theory. Even when presented with evidence that disproves the theory then Cognitive Dissonance will set in and does not allow them to see it. This is evident in the Netflix documentary “Behind the Curve” where Flat Earthers see the results of their own experiments. Scientists can also be victims of Cognitive Dissonance. If a climate scientist makes a living researching man-made climate change, then he/she is very unlikely to be able to acknowledge proof that humans are not the primary driver behind it - "it must be true". Mainstream science makes several unwritten assumptions, which are not proven, and proceeds as if they are true, and labels everything that doesn’t lie within their unproved assumptions as pseudo-science. It does not matter if the scientific method has been used to investigate it or not. It is categorically rejected without even raising an eyebrow. The works of people like Rupert Sheldrake is just ridiculed and rejected without looking at the evidence, because “it cannot be true”. That is not a very scientific approach coming from people claiming to be scientific. In an open democratic society, it should be allowed for people to voice their concerns and views without being ridiculed and labeled “Science Deniers” or “Conspiracy theorists”. When the so-called “Science Deniers” can prove their theories and mainstream science acknowledge them, this is when science makes great leaps forwards.
A big part of the problem is institution capture that has allowed things like a large portion of the medical community to believe the pharma industry created non addictive opiates for more than a decade.
Whenever I debate publicly online, it's never to convince the individual I'm debating with. It's to swing in the favour of science to the readers who are still on the fence.
@@thekaxmax yes, and? It's not mentioned here for some reason, despite it's critical link. Can't discuss "science denial" without addressing the state of modern academia.
My father is way down the conspiracy rabbit hole. I've had to walk away from the whole thing, he showed me he cared more about these crazy conspiracies then me, and I had enough. It all comes back to racism and hate in the end when you get that far down and it's hard to get them to talk rationally. I am all for trying to reach those that can be reasoned with but sometimes .... well my father is well beyond my reach.
What is a science denier??? If it disagreeing with scientific conclusions, then that is a healthy environment which should be encouraged - science is all about debate, discussion and skepticism. I dont know anybody that simply denies "Science" outright.
I didn't know that yet I certainly have already noticed it getting mentioned at some point as the name sounded somewhat familiar... however, that looks really interesting. might be something to recommend to one or the other person sitting on the fence...
A skeptic will accept the science once sufficient evidence is provided. For example someone who is skeptical of DNA's existence should hopefully accept it's existence once proof is provided like doing the strawberry experiment. A science denier will not accept any science no matter the evidence. Even if they see it themselves they most likely won't accept it and claim it was doctored or faked.
@@BlurryBigfoot A lot of people believe whatever a scientist tells them, regardless of the evidence. That's the point. They have faith that just because someone has a piece of paper that the information being presented to them is infallible. There are many with those pieces of paper that perpetuate this perspective.
@@BlurryBigfoot But very few practice the scientific method. Most people just have faith in scientists. Not unlike the faith peasants had in the scribes who claimed to commune with God.
How about dropping the religious language? "Deniers" hahaha, Francis Bacon was right when he said that just as there was a Church of England attatched to the State soon there would be a Church of Science as well. If you think science is some impersonal process of idealistic geniuses searching incessantly for the truth then maybe you should read a little bit about the philosophy, history and especially the sociology of science. How science is made and how scientists network. Thomas Kuhn and Bruno Latour is a good start.
The reason you have a computer that works and an internet infrastructure that enables you to post your message is because humans have developed systems for understanding the workings of nature and directing those natural forces toward human goals. This is what science does. It enables us to harness the forces of nature for our own benefit. If dancing in circles around a pile of stones doesn't actually make it rain, eventually we figure that out and try something else. Science is the search for and identification of what works. Over time we've developed some principles on how to go about it to yield reliable results efficiently. That's how we got agriculture, some 10,000 years ago, steam engines 300 years ago, telecommunications 140 years ago, a whole host of medical treatments, and on and on... Science is basically what works. Of course, humans have all kinds of motivations, many of them selfish and shortsighted. So some of the power we gain through science will very likely be used for selfish, shortsighted purposes. But that is not a fault of science. That is a result of one (negative) aspect of human nature. As far as the Church of Science, should you find yourself suffering a heart attack, are you going to refuse to allow the medics to use a defibrillator on you? I have a feeling you are a rational and intelligent person. I expect you would indeed allow them to use it. How do you justify that decision, seeing as we have that defibrillator thanks to the work of smart humans engaged in scientific research? I'd like to read your thoughts on that question.
Scientists have flaws and biases, but scientific methodologies have been designed to check for that. Hence, peer review and competition within science for example. The only thing that fixes "bad science", is good science.
Basically nobody denies Science, as a thing. To the extent that there is disagreement, is the extent that ppl use Science as a political battering ram.
"Basically nobody denies Science, as a thing." Conversely, it is amazing how many people uncritically "believe science" rather than believing geology and so on. Science, by itself, is nothing; it is just a category word, a container.
One thing I never understood about flat-earthers, is what do they think would be the point of such a giant global conspiracy? Who would benefit from it?
A lot of them will say it's "to hide God". As for who's responsible, you pays your money and you takes your choice. For reasons I've never been able to fathom the Freemasons take a huge share of the blame.
They don't believe in jet turbines but "air turbines" which work without fuel. In fact Ram Air Turbines do exist but are emergency generators which produce minimal power from air speed.
Life doesn't deserve to be lived if it isn't examined and understood. Hence, knowledge and education should be a personal civil duty. Knowledge and education should be highly valued. They are critical for survival ... and constitute the building blocks of democracy. Democracy based on fake news, conspiracy theories, never lasts. Democracy requires facts and science.
I find your harsh judgment in the matter to be... pretty similar to mine. the knowledge science has delivered us, has been extremely hard-won, and should be treated as such. I will say this, however: we have all heard the phrase "an unexamined life ain't worth living" or something to that effect... and I suppose I basically agree; but I would add that "an over-examined, but unlived life ain't worth a hill of beans either..." not that examining and living are necessarily exclusive of each other or anything... or are even two different things to any given person... but I belabor the point. peace be upon you, sir.
A very important topic. 'Based upon identity and ideology' describes many many people. It is very true that disinformation is being weaponized for political and financial gain, at the cost of all of us.
Flat earth theory will soon be added to the Texas high school science curriculum. Creationism is already taught in some Texas public schools. Science denial is one of the ten tactics of fascism.
And in fact since science "proves" nothing (it only disproves), it can be helpful to recognize that "what science proves" is an intrinsic overstatement.
I think a lot of this can be traced to the Richard Dawkins of the world. There is absolutely a place for natural sciences, and more broadly STEM, in culture. But it's foolish to assume that any one mode of thinking can lead to a holistic understanding of reality.
Creationists get together in seminars and they preach not changing their minds. They are told to to never admit that they are wrong, regardless of any evidence against them.
I've been engaging in this a lot lately, though it's rarely face to face... I wish that were possible more of the time, and I will look into this work further! It's certainly difficult to change people's beliefs using logic and facts, and often even harder within the family..... We have to learn to trust each other, and see our common humanity and capacity for reasoning. Science needs us all to keep its integrity functioning!
Science is self-correcting in the long term. One of the difficulties we face is that we need shorter term solutions, where we don't have to wait years or decades for peoples' minds to change. Trust is absolutely essential to the process. Developing and earning it is a major hurdle, but a prerequisite for success.
@MendTheWorld I think the main problem we face isn't even obvious. It's a META crisis.... We can't even agree on what's a good process for attaining the truth, let alone what's actually true. Much of what science agrees on isn't even true. That said, it's probably the best way we have at grasping it. A little humility would go quite a long way. I can't even count how many things I once believed because "the science" said so, and I realized later on I was just appealing to authority. These authorities have lied to us like crazy the last couple years especially, which makes wonder how far back that really goes. There's also just the fact that it's hard to admit when you're wrong, and us all being human, we often cling to things that are proven false.
This is a good approach with anything. It’s honestly the same approach as most evangelicals when doing missionary work. I think there’s value in one-on-one interactions when trying to teach and persuade. I have to say though, there’s a lot of room for reasonably doubting the “science” of the current world we live in with centralized internet and very few people actually controlling the narrative. Am I wrong?
@@12xenn45 Just some years ago many theoretical physicists strongly believed in "string theory". Today there are only a few left. There is no evidence for either of these views.
@@ElliHarper I accept that it’s man-made, we have put unprecedented amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, the questions are 1) is it catastrophic? And 2) will giving politicians more power and money fix the “problem”. We don’t know that it is catastrophic yet, but we do know there are bad people champing at the bit to use this to increase their power and extract money from the little people.
Then there's the I LOVE SCIENCE crowd who act like science is a monolithic body of received opinions, rather than a method of inquiry that is never "settled."
Science as a whole is never settled. Individual questions like "Will an apple fall down if I drop it?" or "Do man-made CO2 emissions cause significant global warming?" are.
They have turned science into a secular religion, with government as the savior. They have prophets like Al Gore, tithing like a carbon tax, penance (driving a Prius), etc etc
Everything here may be true, but I have neither the emotional or mental bandwidth to deal with these people. If someone comes to me spouting nonsense, I just walk away. They're a lost cause and I have other things I need to get done.
It's good advice, but most people gain too much of their own self esteem from looking down their noses at people and denigrating them to ever be able to follow it.
It would help if there weren't so many loud people in the "science" camp that don't know what they're talking about. Thinking mainly about sociology (racism, sexism) and climate change.
Details about the 12 primary producers (example: the Russian internet troll farm) of disinformation would be useful to know while talking with science deniers, along with how those details were learned and verified.
In Russian, we call them “troll factory”. Their activity likely started at the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis. Unfortunately, it’s very difficult to find any verified information about them. Hey, you don’t expect Mr Putin to invite everyone for a tour? “And here, in this room, technical writers compose new posts to counter Ukrainian bloggers who tell about Crimea.” If only. You may find some interviews with people who supposedly worked there. Hey, I keep saying things like “supposedly”, “likely”. Our opponents don’t have any doubts at all. Is that the reason why it’s so difficult to argue with them?
@@Wonders_of_Reality : If the details about why the journalist believes his/her story are classified and thus unable to be scrutinized, that undermines confidence that the story is true. People who disbelieve it shouldn't be blamed.
@@brothermine2292 Guess how many people actually care about the sources of information (let alone check them). Methods of propaganda are the exact opposite of the scientific method, and that's the reason why this “factory” was effective (and probably still is).
@@Wonders_of_Reality : Don't tell me to guess. If you think you know how few people would respond to details about the sources of their false beliefs, and how those sources operated, then state the number and cite your source.
The social aspect of this is interesting. One wonders why one camp is prepared to question what they think they know when confronted by new evidence and the other gets upset at the thought of self-criticism and heaven forbid, thinking they might be wrong. I guess it's the difference between those of us who want to learn and those who are just not (really) interested.
You are noticing that BOTH processes are built into human cognition. When you encounter someone who is resistant to changing their mind in the face of evidence, you'll need to find out what is REALLY motivating them to hold the beliefs that they do. This is often difficult, as in most cases the person doesn't really know themselves what their internal motivations are.
Priceless talk. Thank you Lee McIntyre for sharing your thoughts on this topic. Our recent pandemic has been an exceptional glimpse at our susceptibilities to misinformation and at those who appear to be the creators of disinformation. Even kind people can be proponents of both misinformation and disinformation. Empathy towards those who are vulnerable is helpful.
Indeed. This pandemic also shows that science deniers are actualy people we must take seriously, like it or not, because misinformation can lead to real harm when unchecked. And there have been examples of this recently even outside of pandemics - one just has to look at 2021 elections and all conspiracies that surrounded it and where it all led. Furthermore - looking back in time only a few decades we can see how misinformation and conspiracy theory can lead to world war and mass genocide - as long as it is pushed forward by strong propaganda and internet provides plenty of oportunity for that. It is easy to ignore or laugh at a crazy person on the street ... but enough of them, and it's not funny anymore. For example: climate change is undeniably one of great existential threats to humanity. It would be a real shame to let human civilization sink into dark age only on account of an "uninportant" conspiracy theory.
I do love that “science denier” is referring to basically anyone that doesn’t agree with the mainstream. It’s largely about the fact that “scientists” now have perverse incentives. Science isn’t perfect. The problem is that people think scientists aren’t subject to normal human influences such as greed or fame, he’ll or even being accepted. As soon as you call something conspiracy you are now shutting down entire lines of questioning, because WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO BE A CONSPIRACY THEORIST?!
Perverse incentives almost always favor science deniers and conspiracy theorists. Few legitimate scientists achieve great wealth or fame. Science is hard work.
@@TheGahta Scientism is the dogmatic belief of people that say things such as "the science is settled" or "don't question the science". That is a belief system, a non-theist religion. Someone that doesn't believe a scientific result is far less dangerous that a person that wraps their beliefs in a science skin suit.
Okay, so Wikipedia says that, "Scientism is the view that science is the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values." Uh, so... it's a new word for 'rational', 'practical', 'sensible', 'pragmatic' or 'sane'?
@@TheGahta ... Great question! Scientism is the philosophy or worldview where the individual claims that the only mode of knowledge is the scientific method. It claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientific worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.
My answer: don't. If someone can look around at the world and think "This is all bullshit. My eyes are deceiving me." What exactly do you say to such a person?
"my eyes are deceiving me" is more or less the reason science started using double blind experiments. The problem are the "my eyes knows better" people.
@@Oscar1618033 I was referring more to the fruits of science. It's hard to point to anything man-made in the modern world that didn't require science in some way to invent, so I'm just curious how a science denier explains literally everything around them.
Refutation is part of the back and forth of the scientific process. That is to say, that science deniers are actually part of the process in a way. Being skeptical and challenging things is good. Fooling yourself into believing that you are doing so when you are actually willfully ignorant of the data, and don't really understand the contentions is the norm.
Indeed, I've learned much from flat Earthers just by trying to understand where they're coming from. It's improved my understanding of both science and human behaviour.
When I debate online with science deniers, I assume I will not change their mind, but I may encourage another reader to consider an option. Allowing BS to go unchallenged is dangerous too.
First question : What is science denier? Is he/she a sort of heretic? Second question: Is science a sort of a concensus? Third question: Is science a democratic practice? Forth question: Has it ever in history, a scientific leap forward been decided by a majority? Does scientific discovery follows the rules of logic? Is it always intuitive? I do not understand why any knowledge cannot be question regardless of the tags that may follow be it anti science, conspirasionists, antivaxer, or any other.
The right questions ... some other questions to go with them: 1st - is being a heretic bad? Note the lesson of Copernicus; 2nd - does consensus prove anything? Note the Bubonic Plague and Miasma Theory; 3rd - should it be? Or should it be a strictly evidence based, adversarial search for the best fit to available data, and definition of experiments to uncover the next data needed I'll throw in a 4th - when science becomes dependent on funding that is impacted by government policy that its research itself impacts, are scientists - and therefore the scientific method and the resulting science - immune to the corrupting influence of money and power? Corollary - if so, what makes scientists unique amongst humanity in that regard?
Negative ghost rider, how about we call them what they are and don't let their hurt feelings influence the strength of the facts we keep slapping them with.
@@Noises The topic was "how to talk to ...". It is a fact that if you begin an interaction by patronizing and "slapping" the other person, you are not talking to them, you are talking at them. By all means, maintain a posture of presumed intellectual superiority, coloured with a hint of abusive contempt, if that is what makes you feel better in yourself. Just don't expect anyone to listen to you.
@@credenza1 very well put. We have a group here who march in lockstep with 100% certainty not only of their opinions, but often also of their moral superiority as human beings. Why would anyone possibly be concerned about that??
@@marpsr Yes. I can think of no historical precedent for a country divided by badly framed laws, favouring one group over another, where people were set against one another for no good reason.
The 2 hardest thing for me is with 1. Cherry picking evidence, because if you just take all evidence at the same value but the source of that evidence is not reliable or trusted, then it seems that what appears like cherry picking (arguable whether it is) is necessary especially in the face of manipulation. 2. Rely on fake experts when doubt about what experts you can actually trust for reliable information is questionable, and now, who is fake? Who are the fake experts, when trust in systems and institutions is such a difficult thing. I have a hard time arguing with science deniers or conspiracy theorists because if it goes in these areas I am at a loss because these are to me important in critical thinking. All of the things we can do to someone of differing beliefs, no matter how convincing, can also be used convincingly in their favor to begin to convince you. So this is hard, if you are paying attention to how someone is presenting their data.
27:11 "Even though I didn't convince him I think that I did build some credibility by being there, by showing up in person..." Yes. This hinges on the strong element of social bonding that goes on in "conspiracy communities". It's really all about personal relationships, belonging to a tribe. I think it was very important to him that you were willing to make an effort, and put yourself on the line. In fact, even though he backed out of it, you demonstrated that you were more prepared than he was to "put your money where your mouth is". This alone will serve to undermine his own confidence in his beliefs. The seed has been planted in his mind that he dare not question his beliefs or they might actually succumb to the questioning.
How to talk to a science denier: Just walk away. If they are firm in their beliefs, they have taken leave of rationality, their senses, and objective reality. No amount of babbling at them will change their mind. I won't waste any time or effort on them, unless they've unknowingly dropped something, have a flat tire beside the road, or are trapped in a burning building.
What you are talking about here are simple, straightforward sales techniques. If you want to 'sell' a point of view you first have to sell yourself. The scientific community, if it wants to convey scientific consensus, must learn these. It's literally that simple - go buddy up with a _good_ salesperson and learn from them ..... then go forth and sell!
How do you find a science denier to test on? I see a scenario akin to those posters with "learn to read". An ad with: "wanted science deniers for scientific testing, so from your perspective: free money..." I think I might be a science denier, since I am not totally on board with reductionism as a main means of studying reality.
At it's root, the problem with the societies that create science deniers, is the commodification of knowledge and education. When we start educating everyone to the same level, regardless of the role we expect them to fulfil, and when we start to teach critical thinking as part of our national curriculums, then we may begin to role back the tide of woo peddlars.
In my experience the major problem is the word believe. Most people think it means faith. By definition to believe something is to accept that it's real. Yet the basis for belief can be faith--which requires no evidence--or logic and inference which does.
I hate the term "science denier." "Science" isn't a synonym for truth, or facts, or reality. Nor is it a monolithic institution. It's a process. No one literally "denies" science. If anything, they simply deny something that certain scientists have said. More likely, they're just being skeptical, which itself is thinking scientifically. Unscientific thinking is just as much in line with an unquestioning *acceptance* of whatever information comes labeled as "science." The science sucker is more real than the science denier.
I think that mr McIntyre means something slightly different than you think. I don't think he's talking about "science" as a synonym for "truth". I think what he means when he says "science" is (roughly) "the scientific process and the knowledge we have gained from using it". Of course loads of ideas and results at the front lines of scientific progress is in flux. But you cannot claim that the earth is flat or that evolution doesn't happen, without fundamentally denying the scientific method. And I think that's what he means when he says "science denier".
@@BoyKissBoy Except COVID policies are the most argued about topic at the time this video appears and he knows it and he's also aware that especially the unvaccinated get labeled science deniers.
I see another Problem: Science Papers aren't that accessible for many people out there. The majority of people don't work in these fields and have a hard time to understand what is written. I think there needs to be a good written, easy to understand, short version of the papers. And, most importantly, they need to be free to access. There are great science magazines doing the this work, but they are blocked by a pay-wall.
I totally agree with you about evidence being in forms that can be understood by non experts and understood this nugget doesn't help in terms of getting access to the science deniers but, something exciting I found out through a friend completing her PHD, is that most authors (or their assistants) will happily send you a copy of their paper if you contact them directly and be delighted that someone is interested in reading it.
Also, "Hard-core denier" = heretic who's mind has to be changed by emphasizing the unity and universality of the church of scientism built on the Rock of St. Consensustine. HELLer had to be excommunicated.. (also, I'm +4 seconds off, sorry.)
As someone who is on the fence about climate change, I'll attempt to explain why I have doubts. 1. I notice that the groups most vocal about climate change are the same groups who are opposed to traditional American values. I immediatly see a possible connection between someone who wants to take America down capitalism and that same person wants to make America give up it's industry and cheap energy for climate change. Or the connection bewteen someone who is vegan for philosophical reasons and also wants to eliminate cattle ranches and dairy farms because cows burp CO2 and methane. 2. The causes for climate change are all intangible. The end-of-the-world 3 degree increase in temperature is less than most people can feel. When carbon dioxide is discussed, it's talked about in tons; tons of light weight invisible gas is hard to picture. Or cows burping methane; so what, if the cows don't eat the grass and burp, another animal will. 3. The sheer size of our planet compared to humanity. This is a really big place and it's hare to see how driving a car or keeping the lights on is going to hurt something that huge. 4. The "just do something" philosophy. So many times, I've heard people on the left saying essentially "just do something" about any issue they oppose; regardless of if the "something" they are proposing will actually work. 5. The climate conversation ignores that the planet is in a natural warming period. The planet is still recoving from the "little ice age" of the 18th and 19th centuries. When preindustrial temperature is compared to today's temperature, the lower numbers before the industrial revolution are treated as "normal" when in reality we know they were lower than normal. Wouldn't it be more fair to say that human activity may be accelerating the natural warming? 6. Finally, politics. When climate change laws are only being pushed by one party that makes it look like it is a political talking point no more important than Monica Lewinsky's dress As the old joke says: "Why did they change the name of global warming to climate change? So now, whether it's hot or cold, it's still the Republician's fault."
The term 'science denier' exists only to denigrate anyone who disagrees with the consensus opinion which is more often than not driven by political ideology. I've never met a 'science denier' in my life, but there are plenty of people who disagree with a scientific theory because it does not explain or predict reality. Historically such people include Galileo Galilei and Nicolaus Copernicus.
If it doesn't predict reality, then it's not a scientific statement, let alone a scientific theory (so your statement is in fact a science denial actually), a scientific statement is no way a consensus opinion, very far away from that in fact, since scientific theories emerge essentially contrary to the general opinion, common sense and direct evidence of your own experience even (The list is too long to be broken down here, I let you discover it by your own means).
@@marpsr Absolutely! That is why it's important to make that judgement on a per case basis and avoid applying a label to any and all information that might come from a particular source. Also, it is critical in making that judgement to figure out HOW would "insert argument here" benefit "insert person or group of people here"
You shy-away from science-youtubers nowadays. Sell it to yourself all you want, this is clearly what it is: All branches of science-denial always and since forever had telltale-signs aka shared-similarities aka obvious-signifiers. Its you who denies reality by saying 'Yeah no, no, no, doesnt mean anything that i fullfill every Identifcation-Sign humanity, my species, has ever conceived for what a science-denier or fool is'
@@adrianguggisberg3656 Das stimmt, und doch lässt die Wissenschaft der Religion immer weniger Platz für Gott und das Übernatürliche. Bei gewissen Arten von Spiritualität gebe ich dir also recht, beim Glauben an z.B. abrahamitische Religionen die stetig neu ausgelegt werden allerdings nicht.
@@hobbybaschtler7896 gerade die ständige Neuauslegung ist unabdingbar, genau wie bei der Wissenschaft auch. Möglicherweise gibt es eines Tages eine Formel zur Definition oder Widerlegung einer Ur-Schaffenskraft oder dergleichen, aber solange wir nicht Zuflucht in abergläubischen Wundern oder Erklärungen der Welt suchen, die den Naturgesetzen widersprechen, sehe ich keinen Verlust an Raum für einen "Gott" es sei denn, Du kannst mir eine Erklärung im beobachtbaren Universum liefern, warum wir nicht stehlen, foltern, morden sollten.
@@adrianguggisberg3656 Man spricht ja z.B. vom aktuellen Stand der Wissenschaft. Dieser ändert und erweitert sich stetig. Die wissenschaftliche Methode bleibt aber. Wie im Video gesagt muss ein Wissenschaftler bereit sein, seine Theorie für eine bessere zu verwerfen, wenn eine bessere Theorie vorliegt. Das ist ein erheblicher Unterschied zur Religion. Früher hat Gott noch über Blitz, Klima und Krankheit geherrscht. Das kann er jetzt aber nicht mehr, weil wir diese Phänomene besser verstehen. Die Kirche (und eng verknüpft die Religion) ändert sich dem Zeitgeist entsprechend, z.B. deren Verhältnis zur Homosexualität verändert sich gut sichtbar. Und dass wir Religion brauchen um moralisch sein zu können lehne ich ganz ab. Moral entsteht z.B. dadurch, dass wir Menschen keine Einzelgänger sind. Das Individuum muss isch der Gruppe entsprechend Verhalten, das ist ein einfacher Fall von Moral, der auch in der gottlosen Tierwelt zu Hauf zu finden ist.
@@hobbybaschtler7896 Die Theorien in der Theologie werden ebenso laufend verändert und angepasst wie jene der Wissenschaft. Unser Verständnis von Gott verändert sich mit unserem Wissen, genau wie unser Verständnis des Universum. Gott, Religion und die Kirche sind drei vollkommen unterschiedliche Dinge, die man nicht verwechseln oder gleichsetzen darf. Und wer sagt, die Tierwelt sei gottlos?
I think we should replace the word BELIEVE when we're talking about science with the word UNDERSTAND
Semantics is key it's true. Science is a pretty big umbrella these days (an understatement) so it's wise sometimes to differentiate Science from science, "science", & indeed scientism. Otherwise you're talking about something very close to a new religion.
@@myfrequencies1912 Originally scientism simply meant "science is the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values." It has more recently been co-opted by science deniers as a convenient way to quickly reject the science that doesn't fit with their worldview. Beats having to come up with actual evidence for their own position, I guess.
I have tried to role model this approach. I don't 'believe' in the way someone might express it. I understand evolution, etc.
Excellent point.
We should, but it'll change nothing, I'm afraid - flatearthers will simply insist that they are the ones who understand the "facts" and the rest of the unwashed masses are just ignorant/brainwashed/paid agents of NWO.
As someone who used to run with the conspiracy crowd, I have to tell you: The more convinced you are that there's someone laughing at you behind your back, the more convinced you are that everything SOMEONE says is a lie.
A.G.
This is why, as difficult as it may be, any possibility of changing minds rests upon expressing sympathy and respect. Condemnation and ridicule just makes matters worse.
@@MendTheWorld You could offer me all the sympathy in the world but, when you've seen through the lies, you can't go back, sorry.
@@MendTheWorld Agreed, but now there are so many polarized people with completely differing interpretations of things that employ sympathy and empathy, and there are also many that ridicule and condemn all across any kind of spectrum that it is not clear who to listen to, and our own cognitive bias probably influences who we start to listen to because sympathy and respect are no longer clues as to who you should listen to, and condemnation and ridicule are no longer reliable deterrents.
It's all very confusing, I agree, but the foundation for SHARED BELIEF is trust and respect. It's impossible to persuade others with facts alone if they don't trust that you respect or understand them as people. That doesn't mean you have to agree with them, but you can't mock or insult them.
The partisan divide is already there. It's been nurtured and reinforced for decades. I'm talking about the only way to overcome it.
Of course is a lie who’s those scientists who all the advertisements are referring too for example scientists provide a brilliant study thank you for bs
One thing I noticed about your success stories which lines up with my own experience is that they weren't just in person, but one on one. The few successes I had were one on one where the conversation was kept focused and we addressed one issue at a time. In groups, even when it's two people trying to convince one denier, splitting the deliberate direction prevents progress.
Very good point. Group discussions can easily lead to a “Gish Gallop”, Where it’s very difficult to stay focused on topic. Face-to-face, one on one also provides the opportunity to convey sincerity _and_ empathy, which provide an essential gateway for breaking down belief silos.
Why even call it a denier? If one is not comfortable with science? Science makes a lot of mistakes. Science at one point had agreed to convince women to smoke cigarette during pregnancy, to later find out was the worst thing for the fetus. Science is the progress of the minds. I am skeptic of all what mankind does. Not all have good intentions, some have agendas, some are motivated by greed, status, wealth, power. No one can guarantee science without proving mankind has some dark intentions. We underestimate the intentions. Men lie, a lot, for many reasons. So unless you can totally prove me that men do not lie the fact that I question science does not make me a denier?Does it?
You are definitely right that incomplete information and misinformation can be used to mislead people, and that leads to real harm. But we live in a world where we sometimes have to choose one action or another even if nothing has been totally metaphysical proven. That's what science is for. Gathering all the information we can from experts, making choices based on what that information says, and if later information shows that you were wrong, making different decisions in the future. That's science. Rejecting all information because it's possible to be wrong doesn't help with those decisions.
In such cases it may be perceived as a threat, or an embarrassment to alter one's position while in any kind of audience of more than one-on-one. That could be somewhat the case when in the presence of two people trying to convince them that the scientific evidence is worth believing in.
I also would like to know why some people end up feeling so threatened by such scientific evidence. What does this rejection provide for them?
"How to Talk to a Science Denier"
Easy -- don't discuss "science". You can discuss astronomy, geology, physics, geography, biology, even dendrochronology, but don't discuss "science".
Wait…. They’ve already turned the word “liberal” into an expletive, and now you’re willing to give up the word “science” as well?
No matter. I understand the cynical perspective of your comment, and agree that “science” is probably a “trigger word” for some religious zealots, that would shut down any possibility of rational conversation, but there _are_ theists for whom science is fully compatible with their worldview (e.g. methodological naturalism) and there’s little to be gained by coddling fundamentalist extremists.
(I just _had_ to state the obvious, even if your comment was in jest.).
@@MendTheWorld "you’re willing to give up the word “science” as well? "
The proper use of "science" is a category or container. It makes no sense to say something like "science says..." because science is not an actor. It is a container and it contains a great many things; some of those things are disputed whether to be there (psychology) whereas other things, the "hard sciences" indisputably belong in that container (geology for instance).
However, many people use it as a synonym for *religion* (which also is just a category or container). "I believe in Science!" and it is often capitalized when used in this manner.
What can be entertaining in such instances is to find out how much (or little) this person knows about the thing about which he proclaims belief.
I am an ex Science Denier. I believed in flat earth. The lot. I now fight against it whilst trying to learn and use my previous thought processes to help get though to other science deniers.
Pics or didn't happen
Flat Earthers are not science deniers but idiots.
@@nwogamesalert They are both
@@N0Xa880iUL Just click for many videos.
Don't fight it man, it's a never ending battle. Get a nice log cabin somewhere and enjoy life. I'm glad you saw the light.
"stop asking why someone believe such crazy things and start asking why someone wants them to believe it"
usually religion
1) A naive or childish world view. 2) Attempting to gain some form of mental control over complex matters. 3) Fear, confusion, having an incomplete understanding of things. 4) Having been actively misguided and being kept in that state for power or profit. 5) Rebellion against the system and a desire for exclusivity. 6) The fear of losing exclusivity and the trauma of having to dismantle your own beliefs, especially if you know you have been conned or lied to.
@@RomainVanAelst The Green Religion?
Climate Faith?
@@charlesnelson5187 Csn you elaborate what you mean? Where do you get these ideas from?
@@TorianTammas Hi Torrian. These are not 'ideas' these are scientific facts. I got them from science books and from organisations like NASA and NOAA.
Where do you get your 'ideas' from?
Maybe you should start with 'facts' instead?
I agree from personal experience with your assertion that science deniers change their minds after meeting a trusted person with knowledge of the subject. This does have a caveat. You can’t change the mind of someone who knows their beliefs are irrational, but where the emotional reward for feeling relevant and part of a group is stronger than their desire for factual knowledge.
Flat Earth is a good example of where this type of denier is common.
If you think flat earthers really exist then the joke is on you.
@QED There's not one single genuine flat earther out there. It's all about having fun with the humor deniers.
@@jamesg1367 I do think you're right for the vast majority... Only.
@QED He has no clue about the level of stupidity flerfs will stoop to.
Amen.
I debate a lot of science deniers who are intentionally, professionally dishonest, but their arguments and misconceptions are widely held by and agreed upon by much of the audience, so it's always effective to understand even the most dishonest of science deniers because they are expressing something honest people think is real.
Facts are hard to argue with though...Coldest Antarctica winter since 1974...Greenland GAINING ice mass? Cognitive dissonance anyone?
@@charlesnelson5187 but people always have an alternative explanation for the facts. They acknowledge climate change, but say it's just part of the natural cycle
@@charlesnelson5187 Can you explain the difference between Werther, local climate and global climate. If you find this answer then you understand what is at stake.
@@TorianTammas There is no such thing as 'global climate'. Maybe English is not your first language? In which case good effort but please try and express rational thoughts.
@@SnakeWasRight Well maybe your explanation is an 'alternative' explanation for the facts.
We know that the Vikings colonised Greenland in the 9th century and were driven out by the 11th. So maybe it is part of the natural cycle...no?
The secret isn't to defend what you know to be true, the secret is to make their truth be unreliable enough to cause doubt.
At 22:22 "If I could learn how to talk to a Flat Earther I could learn how to talk to a Climate Denier, etc." - I've been talking to Flat Earthers since 2015 for exactly this reason! Good to know someone else has the same idea, but I am not sure if I have ever convinced anyone. Sometimes they just disappear off the radar and I wonder if that means they have moved their position and don't want to admit it, or they are just fed up with talking to me. One thing I have learnt is that, if you are using a content driven approach, it just as important that you understand the most common pseudo science arguments used by the group you are going up against as it is that you understand the history of the real science that they are denying. An excellent example of this was the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. When I heard that debate had been arranged I was horrified! I thought Bill Nye would crash and burn because he didn't know the YEC arguments. But when I saw the debate I knew that Bill Nye had been coached by someone who knew YEC arguments backwards. I found out later he had gone to Eugenie Scott and the NCSE! Probably the best people in the world to prepare him for that debate!
Pretty sure I could help someone planning a content driven approach to Flat Earthers, though others out there have even more experience than me.
BTW, Flat Earth isn't the most out there pseudo cosmology. There are "Concave Earthers" for example, people who believe that the Earth is a hollow sphere, and that we live on the *inside* !!! There is supposed to be a church in the US that mandates that belief!
Interesting comment. So WHY are you trying to convert flat-earthers, or debate them ? I might find it interesting to explore their thinking, and maybe see how they respond to contrary evidence, but ... I really don't care that they (like most) hold unsupportable views and beliefs.
@@stevealexander8010 Well, partly because they are a test case, they may not be the lowest hanging fruit, but they are close to the lowest. By lowest hanging fruit I mean in the sense that it is easy to show them evidence that they are wrong. You can't show a Young Earth Creationist a film of all of their ancestors going back to the LCA with Chimps, you need to show them something like the mutation that deactivated the GULO gene and made us susceptible to scurvy. Whereas with Flat Earthers you can show them a sunset and ask them where exactly is the Sun? Because if it is shining down on clouds in the Tropics how is it possible that you can see it shining up at the underneath of them at sunset?
So it should be easy. It isn't, but it should be!
I think we *can* say that it is easier. Some senior Flat Earthers have recanted over the years (as far as I am aware, none of them because they talked to me).
My thinking (echoed by Lee in this video, it's the first time I've heard anyone come up with the same idea) was "If we can't reach Flat Earthers we can't reach any science deniers! And if we can then just maybe we can learn something that will help us reach the ones that do real harm, like the anti-vaxers and the Climate Emergency deniers."
But there is another reason I tend to focus on them specifically. It's my wheelhouse. I am a Physics graduate, and whilst I am not a professional scientist I do read a lot of science books and articles. Astronomy is a particular passion for me and it is from Astronomy that the original ground based proofs of the Earth's spherical shape came. I know that history in quite a lot of detail.
And in general I talk to people who hold anti-science beliefs because its fun! Sometimes I learn stuff, like for example I was talking to a Moon Hoaxer and he raised an objection to me regarding the atmosphere breathed by the Astronauts. He said humans can't breath oxygen for the time they say it took them to get to the Moon and back because pure oxygen is a poison, you will die in about 24 hours. So I looked it up, and he was correct, however astronauts have atmospheres of about 30-35% Earth's atmospheric pressure, and at that pressure it is not dangerous.
@@k_tell First step: Infiltrate group 'on the spectrum', "flat earth believers", post talk/opinion on how you think earth flat, attempt to increase levels of ridicule about idiots who actually seem to think world flat.
Next step: confuse these flat earth idiots with 'climate deniers', who 'deny "science".
Then, add in anti vaxers, fake moon landings, WT7, conspiricy freaks.
Try and give lectures to people who have not done a course in psychology, or do not receive any money from left wing social science think tanks. ...
Tell them flat earthers, climate deniers, anti vaxers, fake moon landings are all wrong and don't know what they're talking about...
ie. link "climate change deniers" to all the other idiots out there.
Go home from dinner party/disco/wedding, knowing you have converted another sap to your opinion. Give yourself a home-made gold star andstick it in your notebook.
I wish I was a good enough person to spend the time in this fight vs. washing my hands of all these people.
But I'm not.
I'm tired and I'm done.
You can't fix stupid.
@@swamivardana9911 citation needed.
You guys, They don't care if the earth is flat or round,. It's not about that... that isn't the point, They just want power and control through any means possible.....
Perhaps we need to devote more scientific research to finding a cure for idiots.
@@skylark1250 That would be education.
It doesn’t always take though.
Think back to high school. Because high school never ends.....
This is why it's so important to keep Good Tone™ when debating online, provided that your actual goal is to persuade them. Your arguments might not be enough on their own, but a person that continously encounters respect will give respect back, and part of that respect is to listen.
This is a very good point, so I feel I need to acknowledge it with more than just a "Thumbs Up".
Trust is the foundation for most of our shared beliefs. And the relevant pragmatic issue is, "Whom do we trust".
Trust is something that must be earned. It cannot be demanded, and it's based on more than just an acknowledgment of qualifications or social status. Trust is based on a sense of partnership... and shared humanity.
Most importantly, trust is also a product of mutual respect. By applying empathy and sympathy, it's possible to treat even the most offensive, uninformed people with a degree of fundamental respect. If you can't muster that, then there's no hope of persuasion. If a person feels you respect them, however, you're more than halfway home in persuading them, facts being largely irrelevant to this process.
I haven't heard of "Good Tone", but it sounds interesting and worth pursuing. I'll "look it up!"
I could do with applying these ideas for when I need to talk to a scientist who also happens to be a "remote working denier"
'You are entirely welcome to believe whatever you want to believe...your belief however will not alter the truth'.
I think one of the things we don't talk about enough is how people decide whom to believe and whom not to, and why. What's the process by which I decide that this person is trustworthy and this other person is not?
As a teacher, I might have an unruly group in the playground that would not go to class when the bell rang. I found that a mass appeal failed, so I would then direct an instruction towards a single student (usually the most rowdy), get their personal attention, and then issue a direct instruction. When they moved, redirect to the next. This was the result of reading some research that indicated each group divided the importance of what you were saying by the number of people present, meaning your words had say a 1 in 40 chance of achieving an impact. Hence, a personal one-on-one approach worked better. Others, when they saw movement, followed like sheep.
Well since everyone seems to be shooting down RI in the comments, and while I can't wait for them to get back in person, I'm a huge fan of this video and all the videos they release on RUclips and I think they deserve some support for bringing interesting discoveries and ideas to the public in convenient lectures like this.
Fully agree.
RI shouldn't provide a platform for a philosopher who's just trying to sell his book. He pretends to understand science denial, then explains it with what is at best an untested hypothesis. And he pretends to be the guy who came up with the hypothesis.
I have no preference to the format of the presentation.
This video was well timed for me.
@@sachamm I didn't hear him give credit, and there is certainly no evidence behind it. I doubt the hypothesis. I've been dealing with science deniers, especially antivaxxers, for over four decades. It's cyclical. The numbers increase, then tend to decrease. The same ease of communication that allows science deniers to share their views allows everybody to share views. The current antivaxxers, by the way, are qualitatively much different than most of those historically. Most deniers used to be new age types, who were into all sorts of alternative medicines. A lot of them today just don't trust the government. And if it has been the government's intent to mismanage the information, it succeeded beyond its wildest dream. I know people who would never have considered not vaccinating their children, who are now resisting getting the Covid vaccine.
In fact, this guy strikes me as a science denier himself. He doesn't understand science, so he puts it on a pedestal.
@@sachamm What I know is that you obviously have a better understanding of science than other commenters here. Maybe we aren't talking about the same thing. I was talking about first, the observation that science denial is increasing, and second that it is explained by increasing communication via new technologies, adding to the echo chamber effect among flat earther types. He is far too confident about both points. And what did you hear him refer to to explain either? I heard no attribution, just his interpretation of events that are probably better explained by polarized political views that have taken most of the western world by storm. I've dealt with experts, both real and pretend since the 1970s. I looked into this guy a little, and I'd lay odds he's a pretend.
"I could have read that study if my hair was on fire" love that line.
It also means that : if you fail to change some people around you with the facts when you are an expert, it means these people don't trust you as a person.
What if that person is my mother?
A different way to look at is that they aren't good at understanding the opposing argument. Trust is a really important factor, but a lot of times the same reference paper being used as evidence of one point can be used as a reference to the contrary. The same research article which shows that side effects from MMR vaccines are incredibly rare (less than 1 in 10000) can also be used to show that the odds of a side-effect from that vaccine are higher than the odds of contracting the illness itself.
@Vlasko60 Look up the rate of severe adverse events from a measles vaccine, it's roughly 5 per 100k. Then look up the number of measles cases is the US in the last 20 years (1 per 100k).
@Vlasko60 Yes, I saw that exact argument happen on reddit related to mandatory measles vaccinations following some outbreaks in 2019. The reasoning was basically that enough people voluntarily vaccinate against measles that mandating vaccines would statistically do more harm than good. A related analogy might be parents understanding that having a strong military and police force is why they are safe, yet not wanting their children to join the military or police out of concern for their safety.
@@Nuovoswiss how did you select your sources?
I hate the sound conspiratorial, but fact and science denial looks like ideological warfare.
It is. KGB spread AIDS denialism in the 1980s, which is later known as the Operation INFEKTION.
I personally have come to the conclusion that I am wasting time from my life even trying. Facts do not work on most people who have a fundamental belief.
Perhaps there is a reason quoting facts at them doesn't work. How do they know they are, in fact, facts? They don't trust you and they don't believe you. You have to start with common ground, something you both agree on, and go from there.
@@trucid2 A good stance. Claiming the high ground and looking down will surely do you no good. It will even lead to the opposite, just like this video will. The more people are cornered, the more they will get in a defensive stance. Even labeling someone as a science denier, a very negative term, will have this effect.
@@jonathanmahoney1672 Scientists work so much with their models that they think of them as being the real world. They confuse their models with reality.
You're literally denying the science he talked about
But you have fundamental belief too.
Nobody forced a flatturd to become a flatturd. A flatturd could just as easily watch true information as they could watch false information.
Community. To change someone's mind, you effectively may be exiling them from their whole social community. That's hard to do for the person who may want to change their mind.
I have a science degree. Once (pre Covid) I was walking through the centre of town (UK, so centre of town is a shopping centre). I did a double take as there was a bloke handing out flat earth leaflets. The shock was that they were very fancy glossy pieces of paper with nice pictures. The style was as a scientific study. Not only that but they had the massive scientific presentation board to go with it, just like a scientist would use to give a presentation. I stopped and read the board. It was very well done, as good as any scientific presentation I had ever seen. It even had a reference section. I took a leaflet to look at in depth. I think the most interesting thing might be that the bloke handing out the leaflets never spoke to me, even though everyone was just walking past and he was the only person there, as far as I could see. So what was the point? I didn't want to start the discussion as I knew i couldn't change his mind, but if he had spoken to me, I would've been interested to see what he had to say.
Their 'scientific' presentation would have been full of nonsense! The UK flat earthers have moved on and lots of them are now medical experts.
@@klandoxlamflac1894 Yes, of course the presentation was full of rubbish but I wonder how many non scientific people would have been taken in by it.
i met a flat earther (thankfully it was online so i didnt have to worry about holding my laughter) once and she asked me what i thought about the shape of the earth
i told her i was sure that its round, geoid with slightly flattened poles and minutely bulging out equator due to the rotation of the earth but roughly a sphere
she was NOT PLEASED and posted a reply saying that i am a 'sheep' and i just believe everything the mainstream media tells me
i tried being patient and just asked her to change my mind with some of the arguments from their side and she wrote stuff like "gravity is faked"
i told her that for the sake of argument, i will accept for a while that gravity is fake and asked her what pulls things down towards the ground if gravity is out of the picture
she replied that "a pull is not a force and things fall down because thats just how it is supposed to be"
i then asked her why is it supposed to be like that? and she stopped replying
Have you had a conversation with someone, who later happily realised that they were incorrect, say that they were lying and not that they were simply incorrect or mistaken? This to me is chilling. Being mistaken is no crime of course, but saying that you were lying is morally problematic!
It's reciprocity. They assume they have been lied to and completely misguided, so it's fine to lie back in your face just to make you dance to their strings for a change. In the most extreme cases, they are not mistaken, they hate you deeply for being aberrant to what they believe is the truth.
@@rotwang2000 That's an interesting, if not cynical perspective. I am not saying that your wrong though.
Personally I think it's due to the nature of survival in a world where lack of knowledge, particularly in work-place, could get you fired.
If anyone has every worked with colleagues from India, you will have had the experience of everyone saying yes I will and no problem, when aske to do something. What you really want to hear is the truth, which at least one can work with. What you don't want is deadlines to pass and colleagues are still trying to understand how to do something they previously said no problem to. In this example it's cultural, but these folks would obviously rather risk failure, than be accused of not knowing how to do something.
Some people seem to not accept this distinction. I am careful with the labeling of liar; that means a person knew the truth but spoke something other than the truth. One must be a mind reader or have excellent evidence the liar knew the truth.
@@rotwang2000 "so it's fine to lie back in your face"
While that *excuse* seems common, I do not choose to violate my principles just because you chose to violate yours (hypothetically of course).
@Matthew Morycinski " In my world, a liar is a liar, and I try to give them a wide berth."
As do I; but rather often this person is your employer, your supervisor, your church leader, the neighbor across your fence.
I asked a flat earther on youtube for experiments I could do to prove the earth was flat. I didn't get a reply.
@Vlasko60 sometimes they end up proving that the earth is in fact... a sphere. of course, they don't interpret their results this way... the morons. maybe I shouldn't call them that... idiots would be more appropriate. yeah, idiots. ...the idiots.
may you go in peace.
@Vlasko60 In my experience they never offer proof of a flat Earth only "proof" that the Earth isn't a sphere, or that Space doesn't exist or that we never went to the Moon. This is because there is no evidence for a flat Earth and much evidence for a spherical Earth, that they're keen to debunk.
Is there empirical evidence beyond anecdotal that science denial is getting worse? I remember asking the late James Randi this question in the early 1990s before social media. I think the spread of disinformation is obviously much quicker and easier today, but what is the evidence that their are growing numbers of science deniers?
There are people who wouldn't believe airplanes exist even after travelling by a plane and any kind of approach trying to explain something to them is useless.
I do precisely the things you say not to do. That changes now.
@@swamivardana9911 about?
@@swamivardana9911 I have a PhD in molecular biology and years of experience. I've never heard Dr. Faucci say anything wrong.
@@farvision by framing your statement like that i think it implicitly denies a persons personal experience and might put them on the defensive. It might also come off as “I have listened to everything he’s said *and agree*” which might put your credibility in question if they produce a proof of him lying. Im not sure but I think a better way to approach the issue would be to state your expertise in the subject, and propose to answer their query/proposed proof. It establishes an openness to new evidence whilst still asserting your credibility. Because hey, he might have said something wrong or lied.
I completely defend anyone's right NOT to have to deal with or interact with whomever they don't want and vice versa.
This is why I strongly believe nobody should be forced into prison for more than a year. Prison is torture.
I found the best way to deal with someone who disagrees with the truth is to not try to convince them. Let the person learn it eventually so they don't have to save face. Its so hard to change your position on something if you have to admit to someone that you were wrong. So if you forget that the person you argued with disagrees with you then you can quietly change your position to the truth without the embarassment. That's how I dealt with my mother in law: I begged everyone to *_not_* defend me. Eventually she became my biggest fan.
Things to understand:
People who sells unscientific believes have a very high public speaking skill and know how to command their charisma. While people who is pushed into this rabbit hole are those who usually in a desperation and open to any believes.
Thus you cannot fight unscience with plain nerdy science, you fight back with even more charismatic persuasion.
Lee McIntyre’s world views come across as black and white with a “you are either with us or against us” attitude. If you question anything you are labeled a “Science Denier”. I have a master’s degree in engineering and am well aware of the scientific method, and I do not think words like “consensus” should ever be mentioned in connection with science, because science is not a debate club or a philosophy class. If things are so complex, that you need to talk about “consensus”, then it is no longer science. If the majority think the Earth is flat, is that true then? It doesn’t matter what the consensus is if someone can prove them wrong. Whether or not people are willing to look at the proof is another matter entirely, but that problem applies to both scientists and “Science Deniers” alike.
I cringed when hearing a word like “conspiracies” because it is used in such a derogatory way. Is he saying that there aren’t any conspiracies in this world where people, companies, or governments never ever agree to do things hidden from public view in a way that benefits them in some way? As described in the video “The Lightbulb Conspiracy”. Of course, companies do everything they can to maximize profits - it is not a conspiracy theory, but a conspiracy fact. Just like when pharmaceutical companies are able to sell more vaccines - it is good for business. The virologists and doctors that voice their concerns against vaccinating children against covid are also labeled “Science Denier” or “anti-vaxxers” as if they are against all vaccines. It is this black and white view again.
If people are invested in a theory, like when they earn their living from that theory, or they gain a sense of worth from a theory, and they are surrounded by peers (either online or physically) that share their beliefs, then it is next to impossible to change their view on that theory. Even when presented with evidence that disproves the theory then Cognitive Dissonance will set in and does not allow them to see it. This is evident in the Netflix documentary “Behind the Curve” where Flat Earthers see the results of their own experiments. Scientists can also be victims of Cognitive Dissonance. If a climate scientist makes a living researching man-made climate change, then he/she is very unlikely to be able to acknowledge proof that humans are not the primary driver behind it - "it must be true".
Mainstream science makes several unwritten assumptions, which are not proven, and proceeds as if they are true, and labels everything that doesn’t lie within their unproved assumptions as pseudo-science. It does not matter if the scientific method has been used to investigate it or not. It is categorically rejected without even raising an eyebrow. The works of people like Rupert Sheldrake is just ridiculed and rejected without looking at the evidence, because “it cannot be true”. That is not a very scientific approach coming from people claiming to be scientific.
In an open democratic society, it should be allowed for people to voice their concerns and views without being ridiculed and labeled “Science Deniers” or “Conspiracy theorists”. When the so-called “Science Deniers” can prove their theories and mainstream science acknowledge them, this is when science makes great leaps forwards.
This is superb
Waw, just waw! Most wise words I have seen online!!! 🙏❤️
no i am not talking to them at the first place
A big part of the problem is institution capture that has allowed things like a large portion of the medical community to believe the pharma industry created non addictive opiates for more than a decade.
What about real science deniers? Or those who claim they "are" the science?
Whenever I debate publicly online, it's never to convince the individual I'm debating with. It's to swing in the favour of science to the readers who are still on the fence.
Talk about the Science Crisis and how funding for studies works.
that's a different talk, and has been covered by the Institution.
@@thekaxmax yes, and? It's not mentioned here for some reason, despite it's critical link. Can't discuss "science denial" without addressing the state of modern academia.
My father is way down the conspiracy rabbit hole. I've had to walk away from the whole thing, he showed me he cared more about these crazy conspiracies then me, and I had enough. It all comes back to racism and hate in the end when you get that far down and it's hard to get them to talk rationally. I am all for trying to reach those that can be reasoned with but sometimes .... well my father is well beyond my reach.
Sorry you are having to go though that. I know it can be very panful and difficult.
What is a science denier???
If it disagreeing with scientific conclusions, then that is a healthy environment which should be encouraged - science is all about debate, discussion and skepticism.
I dont know anybody that simply denies "Science" outright.
The "Cranky Uncle" app is fun for teaching critical thinking.
I didn't know that yet I certainly have already noticed it getting mentioned at some point as the name sounded somewhat familiar...
however, that looks really interesting.
might be something to recommend to one or the other person sitting on the fence...
What's the difference between a science denier and someone who questions current scientific knowledge?
A skeptic will accept the science once sufficient evidence is provided. For example someone who is skeptical of DNA's existence should hopefully accept it's existence once proof is provided like doing the strawberry experiment. A science denier will not accept any science no matter the evidence. Even if they see it themselves they most likely won't accept it and claim it was doctored or faked.
Can we have one on "how to remember science is not dogmatic" ? I feel like that is more applicable in today's society.
Did n't you have a movie out recently?
Well it is a religious faith to a lot of people.
@@benjamindover4337 Faith is belief without evidence. Science is repeatable evidence.
@@BlurryBigfoot A lot of people believe whatever a scientist tells them, regardless of the evidence. That's the point.
They have faith that just because someone has a piece of paper that the information being presented to them is infallible. There are many with those pieces of paper that perpetuate this perspective.
@@BlurryBigfoot But very few practice the scientific method. Most people just have faith in scientists. Not unlike the faith peasants had in the scribes who claimed to commune with God.
Next week's video - how to convince a scientist that science is usually wrong .
How about dropping the religious language? "Deniers" hahaha, Francis Bacon was right when he said that just as there was a Church of England attatched to the State soon there would be a Church of Science as well. If you think science is some impersonal process of idealistic geniuses searching incessantly for the truth then maybe you should read a little bit about the philosophy, history and especially the sociology of science. How science is made and how scientists network. Thomas Kuhn and Bruno Latour is a good start.
The reason you have a computer that works and an internet infrastructure that enables you to post your message is because humans have developed systems for understanding the workings of nature and directing those natural forces toward human goals. This is what science does. It enables us to harness the forces of nature for our own benefit. If dancing in circles around a pile of stones doesn't actually make it rain, eventually we figure that out and try something else. Science is the search for and identification of what works. Over time we've developed some principles on how to go about it to yield reliable results efficiently.
That's how we got agriculture, some 10,000 years ago, steam engines 300 years ago, telecommunications 140 years ago, a whole host of medical treatments, and on and on...
Science is basically what works.
Of course, humans have all kinds of motivations, many of them selfish and shortsighted. So some of the power we gain through science will very likely be used for selfish, shortsighted purposes. But that is not a fault of science. That is a result of one (negative) aspect of human nature.
As far as the Church of Science, should you find yourself suffering a heart attack, are you going to refuse to allow the medics to use a defibrillator on you? I have a feeling you are a rational and intelligent person. I expect you would indeed allow them to use it. How do you justify that decision, seeing as we have that defibrillator thanks to the work of smart humans engaged in scientific research? I'd like to read your thoughts on that question.
Scientists have flaws and biases, but scientific methodologies have been designed to check for that. Hence, peer review and competition within science for example. The only thing that fixes "bad science", is good science.
Basically nobody denies Science, as a thing.
To the extent that there is disagreement, is the extent that ppl use Science as a political battering ram.
"Basically nobody denies Science, as a thing."
Conversely, it is amazing how many people uncritically "believe science" rather than believing geology and so on. Science, by itself, is nothing; it is just a category word, a container.
One thing I never understood about flat-earthers, is what do they think would be the point of such a giant global conspiracy? Who would benefit from it?
Nasa apparently. Those babies they eat cost money you know...
@@kidShibuya relatively, NASA don't use any money at all, their budget is only amount to 3% of what usually allocated for US military.
It's obvious who benefits - big globe.
A lot of them will say it's "to hide God". As for who's responsible, you pays your money and you takes your choice. For reasons I've never been able to fathom the Freemasons take a huge share of the blame.
I wish they would bring that bottomless fuel tank technology to my car.
Yeah. Or that free energy from the air, Ancients extracted with pointy bits placed on their buildings.
They don't believe in jet turbines but "air turbines" which work without fuel. In fact Ram Air Turbines do exist but are emergency generators which produce minimal power from air speed.
Life doesn't deserve to be lived if it isn't examined and understood. Hence, knowledge and education should be a personal civil duty. Knowledge and education should be highly valued. They are critical for survival ... and constitute the building blocks of democracy. Democracy based on fake news, conspiracy theories, never lasts. Democracy requires facts and science.
I find your harsh judgment in the matter to be... pretty similar to mine. the knowledge science has delivered us, has been extremely hard-won, and should be treated as such.
I will say this, however: we have all heard the phrase "an unexamined life ain't worth living" or something to that effect... and I suppose I basically agree; but I would add that "an over-examined, but unlived life ain't worth a hill of beans either..." not that examining and living are necessarily exclusive of each other or anything... or are even two different things to any given person... but I belabor the point.
peace be upon you, sir.
Hundreds of flerfs and other science deniers are not happy that this information is getting out...
A very important topic. 'Based upon identity and ideology' describes many many people. It is very true that disinformation is being weaponized for political and financial gain, at the cost of all of us.
absolutely! the disinformation coming from those pushing man-made climate change is costing all of us money and freedom. It needs to stop
Flat earth theory will soon be added to the Texas high school science curriculum. Creationism is already taught in some Texas public schools. Science denial is one of the ten tactics of fascism.
That’s an idiotic viewpoint.
You are absolutely right
It can be helpful to not overstate what science proves. That can provide a great deal of ‘ammunition’ for them.
And in fact since science "proves" nothing (it only disproves), it can be helpful to recognize that "what science proves" is an intrinsic overstatement.
I think a lot of this can be traced to the Richard Dawkins of the world. There is absolutely a place for natural sciences, and more broadly STEM, in culture. But it's foolish to assume that any one mode of thinking can lead to a holistic understanding of reality.
@@finlayson6868 hard to agree more with this
Creationists get together in seminars and they preach not changing their minds. They are told to to never admit that they are wrong, regardless of any evidence against them.
I've been engaging in this a lot lately, though it's rarely face to face... I wish that were possible more of the time, and I will look into this work further!
It's certainly difficult to change people's beliefs using logic and facts, and often even harder within the family.....
We have to learn to trust each other, and see our common humanity and capacity for reasoning.
Science needs us all to keep its integrity functioning!
Science is self-correcting in the long term. One of the difficulties we face is that we need shorter term solutions, where we don't have to wait years or decades for peoples' minds to change.
Trust is absolutely essential to the process. Developing and earning it is a major hurdle, but a prerequisite for success.
@MendTheWorld I think the main problem we face isn't even obvious.
It's a META crisis....
We can't even agree on what's a good process for attaining the truth, let alone what's actually true.
Much of what science agrees on isn't even true.
That said, it's probably the best way we have at grasping it.
A little humility would go quite a long way.
I can't even count how many things I once believed because "the science" said so, and I realized later on I was just appealing to authority.
These authorities have lied to us like crazy the last couple years especially, which makes wonder how far back that really goes.
There's also just the fact that it's hard to admit when you're wrong, and us all being human, we often cling to things that are proven false.
This is a good approach with anything. It’s honestly the same approach as most evangelicals when doing missionary work. I think there’s value in one-on-one interactions when trying to teach and persuade. I have to say though, there’s a lot of room for reasonably doubting the “science” of the current world we live in with centralized internet and very few people actually controlling the narrative. Am I wrong?
Alternatively, how not to act like science is absolute and has figured everything out. /s
Totally. Too many have turned science into a religion.
@@12xenn45 Just some years ago many theoretical physicists strongly believed in "string theory". Today there are only a few left. There is no evidence for either of these views.
@@ElliHarper I accept that it’s man-made, we have put unprecedented amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, the questions are 1) is it catastrophic? And 2) will giving politicians more power and money fix the “problem”. We don’t know that it is catastrophic yet, but we do know there are bad people champing at the bit to use this to increase their power and extract money from the little people.
Spoiler: don't. Even. Try
Then there's the I LOVE SCIENCE crowd who act like science is a monolithic body of received opinions, rather than a method of inquiry that is never "settled."
Science as a whole is never settled. Individual questions like "Will an apple fall down if I drop it?" or "Do man-made CO2 emissions cause significant global warming?" are.
@@iwersonsch5131 *citation needed
They have turned science into a secular religion, with government as the savior. They have prophets like Al Gore, tithing like a carbon tax, penance (driving a Prius), etc etc
@@iwersonsch5131 you aren't a scientist, you are a religious fanatic
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's still the best system we have.
Everything here may be true, but I have neither the emotional or mental bandwidth to deal with these people. If someone comes to me spouting nonsense, I just walk away. They're a lost cause and I have other things I need to get done.
The problem is that you may be the denier. Just listen to yourself.
@@friendlyfire7861 You are incorrect. But thanks.
It's good advice, but most people gain too much of their own self esteem from looking down their noses at people and denigrating them to ever be able to follow it.
If they can be smart and educated people , then something is wrong with the education system.
It would help if there weren't so many loud people in the "science" camp that don't know what they're talking about. Thinking mainly about sociology (racism, sexism) and climate change.
TRUE.
Many science deniers use the "Gish Gallop" technique.
Details about the 12 primary producers (example: the Russian internet troll farm) of disinformation would be useful to know while talking with science deniers, along with how those details were learned and verified.
In Russian, we call them “troll factory”. Their activity likely started at the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis. Unfortunately, it’s very difficult to find any verified information about them. Hey, you don’t expect Mr Putin to invite everyone for a tour? “And here, in this room, technical writers compose new posts to counter Ukrainian bloggers who tell about Crimea.” If only. You may find some interviews with people who supposedly worked there. Hey, I keep saying things like “supposedly”, “likely”. Our opponents don’t have any doubts at all. Is that the reason why it’s so difficult to argue with them?
@@Wonders_of_Reality : If the details about why the journalist believes his/her story are classified and thus unable to be scrutinized, that undermines confidence that the story is true. People who disbelieve it shouldn't be blamed.
@@brothermine2292 Guess how many people actually care about the sources of information (let alone check them). Methods of propaganda are the exact opposite of the scientific method, and that's the reason why this “factory” was effective (and probably still is).
@@Wonders_of_Reality : Don't tell me to guess. If you think you know how few people would respond to details about the sources of their false beliefs, and how those sources operated, then state the number and cite your source.
@@brothermine2292 Looks like you don’t know much about crazy modern Russian propaganda. Never mind then.
The social aspect of this is interesting. One wonders why one camp is prepared to question what they think they know when confronted by new evidence and the other gets upset at the thought of self-criticism and heaven forbid, thinking they might be wrong. I guess it's the difference between those of us who want to learn and those who are just not (really) interested.
You are noticing that BOTH processes are built into human cognition. When you encounter someone who is resistant to changing their mind in the face of evidence, you'll need to find out what is REALLY motivating them to hold the beliefs that they do. This is often difficult, as in most cases the person doesn't really know themselves what their internal motivations are.
Note that both of those camps think the others are in the other camp.
Priceless talk. Thank you Lee McIntyre for sharing your thoughts on this topic. Our recent pandemic has been an exceptional glimpse at our susceptibilities to misinformation and at those who appear to be the creators of disinformation. Even kind people can be proponents of both misinformation and disinformation. Empathy towards those who are vulnerable is helpful.
Indeed. This pandemic also shows that science deniers are actualy people we must take seriously, like it or not, because misinformation can lead to real harm when unchecked. And there have been examples of this recently even outside of pandemics - one just has to look at 2021 elections and all conspiracies that surrounded it and where it all led. Furthermore - looking back in time only a few decades we can see how misinformation and conspiracy theory can lead to world war and mass genocide - as long as it is pushed forward by strong propaganda and internet provides plenty of oportunity for that.
It is easy to ignore or laugh at a crazy person on the street ... but enough of them, and it's not funny anymore. For example: climate change is undeniably one of great existential threats to humanity. It would be a real shame to let human civilization sink into dark age only on account of an "uninportant" conspiracy theory.
I do love that “science denier” is referring to basically anyone that doesn’t agree with the mainstream. It’s largely about the fact that “scientists” now have perverse incentives. Science isn’t perfect. The problem is that people think scientists aren’t subject to normal human influences such as greed or fame, he’ll or even being accepted. As soon as you call something conspiracy you are now shutting down entire lines of questioning, because WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO BE A CONSPIRACY THEORIST?!
I don't think anyone is naming the MOND people science deniers despite lambda CDM being the mainstream.
Perverse incentives almost always favor science deniers and conspiracy theorists. Few legitimate scientists achieve great wealth or fame. Science is hard work.
@Lee McIntyre... Here is a question? How do you handle the other extreme when science turns into Scientism?
What the heck is "scientism"?
@@TheGahta This guy doesn't even know either
@@TheGahta Scientism is the dogmatic belief of people that say things such as "the science is settled" or "don't question the science". That is a belief system, a non-theist religion.
Someone that doesn't believe a scientific result is far less dangerous that a person that wraps their beliefs in a science skin suit.
Okay, so Wikipedia says that, "Scientism is the view that science is the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values." Uh, so... it's a new word for 'rational', 'practical', 'sensible', 'pragmatic' or 'sane'?
@@TheGahta ... Great question!
Scientism is the philosophy or worldview where the individual claims that the only mode of knowledge is the scientific method. It claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality.
Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientific worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview.
Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.
My answer: don't. If someone can look around at the world and think "This is all bullshit. My eyes are deceiving me." What exactly do you say to such a person?
"my eyes are deceiving me" is more or less the reason science started using double blind experiments.
The problem are the "my eyes knows better" people.
@@Oscar1618033 I was referring more to the fruits of science. It's hard to point to anything man-made in the modern world that didn't require science in some way to invent, so I'm just curious how a science denier explains literally everything around them.
Refutation is part of the back and forth of the scientific process. That is to say, that science deniers are actually part of the process in a way. Being skeptical and challenging things is good. Fooling yourself into believing that you are doing so when you are actually willfully ignorant of the data, and don't really understand the contentions is the norm.
Indeed, I've learned much from flat Earthers just by trying to understand where they're coming from. It's improved my understanding of both science and human behaviour.
Irrational people can't be swayed by evidence. You have to use "people skills" to persuade them.
Excellent! Confirming my recent forays into street epistemology (watching it, not doing it!). Lots here to put into practice, great!
"street epistemology"
Love it! 😎
When I debate online with science deniers, I assume I will not change their mind, but I may encourage another reader to consider an option. Allowing BS to go unchallenged is dangerous too.
First question :
What is science denier? Is he/she a sort of heretic?
Second question: Is science a sort of a concensus?
Third question: Is science a democratic practice?
Forth question: Has it ever in history, a scientific leap forward been decided by a majority? Does scientific discovery follows the rules of logic? Is it always intuitive?
I do not understand why any knowledge cannot be question regardless of the tags that may follow be it anti science, conspirasionists, antivaxer, or any other.
Yep..Either/or, black/white. There is no nuance.
The right questions ... some other questions to go with them: 1st - is being a heretic bad? Note the lesson of Copernicus; 2nd - does consensus prove anything? Note the Bubonic Plague and Miasma Theory; 3rd - should it be? Or should it be a strictly evidence based, adversarial search for the best fit to available data, and definition of experiments to uncover the next data needed
I'll throw in a 4th - when science becomes dependent on funding that is impacted by government policy that its research itself impacts, are scientists - and therefore the scientific method and the resulting science - immune to the corrupting influence of money and power? Corollary - if so, what makes scientists unique amongst humanity in that regard?
It's true that he does not define his terms well. Science denier is too easily used as a weapon by people who themselves know nothing.
Yes, heretic is 100% correct. Someone who even dares to question the dogma of the groupthink consensus.
Mistaken beliefs like "Hands up, don't shoot"?
Step 1: Don't be so arrogant and sanctimonious as to use patronizing terms such as "science denier".
Negative ghost rider, how about we call them what they are and don't let their hurt feelings influence the strength of the facts we keep slapping them with.
@@Noises The topic was "how to talk to ...". It is a fact that if you begin an interaction by patronizing and "slapping" the other person, you are not talking to them, you are talking at them. By all means, maintain a posture of presumed intellectual superiority, coloured with a hint of abusive contempt, if that is what makes you feel better in yourself. Just don't expect anyone to listen to you.
@@credenza1 very well put. We have a group here who march in lockstep with 100% certainty not only of their opinions, but often also of their moral superiority as human beings. Why would anyone possibly be concerned about that??
@@marpsr Yes. I can think of no historical precedent for a country divided by badly framed laws, favouring one group over another, where people were set against one another for no good reason.
The 2 hardest thing for me is with
1. Cherry picking evidence, because if you just take all evidence at the same value but the source of that evidence is not reliable or trusted, then it seems that what appears like cherry picking (arguable whether it is) is necessary especially in the face of manipulation.
2. Rely on fake experts when doubt about what experts you can actually trust for reliable information is questionable, and now, who is fake? Who are the fake experts, when trust in systems and institutions is such a difficult thing.
I have a hard time arguing with science deniers or conspiracy theorists because if it goes in these areas I am at a loss because these are to me important in critical thinking.
All of the things we can do to someone of differing beliefs, no matter how convincing, can also be used convincingly in their favor to begin to convince you. So this is hard, if you are paying attention to how someone is presenting their data.
27:11 "Even though I didn't convince him I think that I did build some credibility by being there, by showing up in person..."
Yes. This hinges on the strong element of social bonding that goes on in "conspiracy communities". It's really all about personal relationships, belonging to a tribe.
I think it was very important to him that you were willing to make an effort, and put yourself on the line. In fact, even though he backed out of it, you demonstrated that you were more prepared than he was to "put your money where your mouth is". This alone will serve to undermine his own confidence in his beliefs. The seed has been planted in his mind that he dare not question his beliefs or they might actually succumb to the questioning.
How to talk to a science denier:
Just walk away. If they are firm in their beliefs, they have taken leave of rationality, their senses, and objective reality. No amount of babbling at them will change their mind.
I won't waste any time or effort on them, unless they've unknowingly dropped something, have a flat tire beside the road, or are trapped in a burning building.
Out vote them.
Solution: You DON'T talk to a science denier. You'll end up losing neurons
"Don't convince somebody who doesn't hold their belief based on good evidence by giving them more evidence" - Yes, but it is their problem.
What you are talking about here are simple, straightforward sales techniques. If you want to 'sell' a point of view you first have to sell yourself. The scientific community, if it wants to convey scientific consensus, must learn these. It's literally that simple - go buddy up with a _good_ salesperson and learn from them ..... then go forth and sell!
Don’t the deniers do precisely the same thing?
How do you find a science denier to test on? I see a scenario akin to those posters with "learn to read". An ad with: "wanted science deniers for scientific testing, so from your perspective: free money..."
I think I might be a science denier, since I am not totally on board with reductionism as a main means of studying reality.
At it's root, the problem with the societies that create science deniers, is the commodification of knowledge and education. When we start educating everyone to the same level, regardless of the role we expect them to fulfil, and when we start to teach critical thinking as part of our national curriculums, then we may begin to role back the tide of woo peddlars.
In my experience the major problem is the word believe. Most people think it means faith. By definition to believe something is to accept that it's real. Yet the basis for belief can be faith--which requires no evidence--or logic and inference which does.
so use the right words. I avoid the use of the word 'believe' for that reason.
Thank you so much. That was fantastic
Education, Education, Education.... the only solution.
Are you speaking of state sponsored indoctrination...? A.k.a public schools..?
@@Buckeye_4_Life_
Yes, most of...
I will not blame anyone if he wants private...
I hate the term "science denier."
"Science" isn't a synonym for truth, or facts, or reality. Nor is it a monolithic institution. It's a process. No one literally "denies" science. If anything, they simply deny something that certain scientists have said. More likely, they're just being skeptical, which itself is thinking scientifically. Unscientific thinking is just as much in line with an unquestioning *acceptance* of whatever information comes labeled as "science." The science sucker is more real than the science denier.
I think that mr McIntyre means something slightly different than you think. I don't think he's talking about "science" as a synonym for "truth". I think what he means when he says "science" is (roughly) "the scientific process and the knowledge we have gained from using it".
Of course loads of ideas and results at the front lines of scientific progress is in flux.
But you cannot claim that the earth is flat or that evolution doesn't happen, without fundamentally denying the scientific method. And I think that's what he means when he says "science denier".
@@BoyKissBoy Except COVID policies are the most argued about topic at the time this video appears and he knows it and he's also aware that especially the unvaccinated get labeled science deniers.
Funny I came across this now. I just bought Lee’s book “The Scientific Attitude.” Haven’t got too far into it yet but I’m liking it so far!
Science is determined on how much money is fed to it.
@@12xenn45 no it’s not. Corruption is.
In 2020/2021 it is.
Exactly, hence why we have the scientific consensus being fossil fuels=good die all the money being thrown at it...
@@12xenn45 capitalism is just basing society on capital gain.
Science is a way to apply a method to the research of universal or anecdotal truths
Did that really sound clever to you before you typed it out and embarrased yourself before the entire planet?
I see another Problem: Science Papers aren't that accessible for many people out there. The majority of people don't work in these fields and have a hard time to understand what is written. I think there needs to be a good written, easy to understand, short version of the papers. And, most importantly, they need to be free to access. There are great science magazines doing the this work, but they are blocked by a pay-wall.
I totally agree with you about evidence being in forms that can be understood by non experts and understood this nugget doesn't help in terms of getting access to the science deniers but, something exciting I found out through a friend completing her PHD, is that most authors (or their assistants) will happily send you a copy of their paper if you contact them directly and be delighted that someone is interested in reading it.
14:54 "it's about the community... Our beliefs are... "
Welcome to the church of scientism.
Is Tony Heller banned yet from commenting?
Also, "Hard-core denier" = heretic who's mind has to be changed by emphasizing the unity and universality of the church of scientism built on the Rock of St. Consensustine.
HELLer had to be excommunicated..
(also, I'm +4 seconds off, sorry.)
Great comment. It seems as if that is the desired effect.
@@mr3x2x Seems like it. Everyone with a different opinion is deemed a science denier and thus can be censored in good faith.
That's not what he's saying. Watch that again. He's talking sociology and group psychology in general, not "believe in scientism or else".
@@nbrenton6685 Not what he said. Watch it again.
As someone who is on the fence about climate change, I'll attempt to explain why I have doubts.
1. I notice that the groups most vocal about climate change are the same groups who are opposed to traditional American values. I immediatly see a possible connection between someone who wants to take America down capitalism and that same person wants to make America give up it's industry and cheap energy for climate change. Or the connection bewteen someone who is vegan for philosophical reasons and also wants to eliminate cattle ranches and dairy farms because cows burp CO2 and methane.
2. The causes for climate change are all intangible. The end-of-the-world 3 degree increase in temperature is less than most people can feel. When carbon dioxide is discussed, it's talked about in tons; tons of light weight invisible gas is hard to picture. Or cows burping methane; so what, if the cows don't eat the grass and burp, another animal will.
3. The sheer size of our planet compared to humanity. This is a really big place and it's hare to see how driving a car or keeping the lights on is going to hurt something that huge.
4. The "just do something" philosophy. So many times, I've heard people on the left saying essentially "just do something" about any issue they oppose; regardless of if the "something" they are proposing will actually work.
5. The climate conversation ignores that the planet is in a natural warming period. The planet is still recoving from the "little ice age" of the 18th and 19th centuries. When preindustrial temperature is compared to today's temperature, the lower numbers before the industrial revolution are treated as "normal" when in reality we know they were lower than normal. Wouldn't it be more fair to say that human activity may be accelerating the natural warming?
6. Finally, politics. When climate change laws are only being pushed by one party that makes it look like it is a political talking point no more important than Monica Lewinsky's dress As the old joke says: "Why did they change the name of global warming to climate change? So now, whether it's hot or cold, it's still the Republician's fault."
When you have to do the science of science deniers, what a world!
The term 'science denier' exists only to denigrate anyone who disagrees with the consensus opinion which is more often than not driven by political ideology. I've never met a 'science denier' in my life, but there are plenty of people who disagree with a scientific theory because it does not explain or predict reality. Historically such people include Galileo Galilei and Nicolaus Copernicus.
If it doesn't predict reality, then it's not a scientific statement, let alone a scientific theory (so your statement is in fact a science denial actually), a scientific statement is no way a consensus opinion, very far away from that in fact, since scientific theories emerge essentially contrary to the general opinion, common sense and direct evidence of your own experience even (The list is too long to be broken down here, I let you discover it by your own means).
@@suzanneberyl7910 Correct. Now tell that to modern "scientists".
The most important question to ask will forever be "who benefits?"
And with scientists, often they try for it to be "everyone".
@ger du no it hasn't truth have no bias
Too often the answer is “the globalists, the Statists, the politicians, the elites”
@@marpsr Absolutely! That is why it's important to make that judgement on a per case basis and avoid applying a label to any and all information that might come from a particular source. Also, it is critical in making that judgement to figure out HOW would "insert argument here" benefit "insert person or group of people here"
Trust the science!! Scientism is the new religion. Blindly trusting what an "expert" is telling them is true.
You shy-away from science-youtubers nowadays. Sell it to yourself all you want, this is clearly what it is:
All branches of science-denial always and since forever had telltale-signs aka shared-similarities aka obvious-signifiers.
Its you who denies reality by saying 'Yeah no, no, no, doesnt mean anything that i fullfill every Identifcation-Sign humanity, my species, has ever conceived for what a science-denier or fool is'
If you can question it, it's science.
Truth.
Not quite the correct interpretation of falsifiability, but it is true that if you CAN'T question it, it is NOT science. ;)
That is false.
Science is not capable of answering questions like:
What is love? What is charity? What is mercy? What is justice? What is faith? What is being?
In other words
if you're not allowed to test it or discredit it or even question it
Then ...
it's definitely not science
Now you could get real and call all religious people "science deniers", but this wouldn't help the conversation, would it?
A religion doesn't per se contradict science. Science doesn't deal with god.
@@adrianguggisberg3656 Das stimmt, und doch lässt die Wissenschaft der Religion immer weniger Platz für Gott und das Übernatürliche. Bei gewissen Arten von Spiritualität gebe ich dir also recht, beim Glauben an z.B. abrahamitische Religionen die stetig neu ausgelegt werden allerdings nicht.
@@hobbybaschtler7896 gerade die ständige Neuauslegung ist unabdingbar, genau wie bei der Wissenschaft auch. Möglicherweise gibt es eines Tages eine Formel zur Definition oder Widerlegung einer Ur-Schaffenskraft oder dergleichen, aber solange wir nicht Zuflucht in abergläubischen Wundern oder Erklärungen der Welt suchen, die den Naturgesetzen widersprechen, sehe ich keinen Verlust an Raum für einen "Gott" es sei denn, Du kannst mir eine Erklärung im beobachtbaren Universum liefern, warum wir nicht stehlen, foltern, morden sollten.
@@adrianguggisberg3656 Man spricht ja z.B. vom aktuellen Stand der Wissenschaft. Dieser ändert und erweitert sich stetig. Die wissenschaftliche Methode bleibt aber. Wie im Video gesagt muss ein Wissenschaftler bereit sein, seine Theorie für eine bessere zu verwerfen, wenn eine bessere Theorie vorliegt. Das ist ein erheblicher Unterschied zur Religion. Früher hat Gott noch über Blitz, Klima und Krankheit geherrscht. Das kann er jetzt aber nicht mehr, weil wir diese Phänomene besser verstehen. Die Kirche (und eng verknüpft die Religion) ändert sich dem Zeitgeist entsprechend, z.B. deren Verhältnis zur Homosexualität verändert sich gut sichtbar. Und dass wir Religion brauchen um moralisch sein zu können lehne ich ganz ab. Moral entsteht z.B. dadurch, dass wir Menschen keine Einzelgänger sind. Das Individuum muss isch der Gruppe entsprechend Verhalten, das ist ein einfacher Fall von Moral, der auch in der gottlosen Tierwelt zu Hauf zu finden ist.
@@hobbybaschtler7896 Die Theorien in der Theologie werden ebenso laufend verändert und angepasst wie jene der Wissenschaft. Unser Verständnis von Gott verändert sich mit unserem Wissen, genau wie unser Verständnis des Universum. Gott, Religion und die Kirche sind drei vollkommen unterschiedliche Dinge, die man nicht verwechseln oder gleichsetzen darf. Und wer sagt, die Tierwelt sei gottlos?