How to talk to a science denier

[Kiristar]

I came across this handy summary on Facebook today and thought of this group....

Spoiler: Large colourful image of 'Techniques of Science Denial' diagram

"How to spot a science denier – and how to talk to them.

Science denial follows predictable patterns. Whether it’s climate change, vaccines, or evolution, the same flawed arguments appear again and again.

Understanding these five common techniques can help you recognize – and counter – science denial when you see it:
Fake Experts: Using unqualified people to challenge real experts. (Think: “This blogger says vaccines are dangerous!” A blogger claiming vaccines are dangerous isn’t the same as a virologist who has spent decades studying)
Misrepresentation & Logical Fallacies: Twisting data, using false comparisons, or making emotional appeals instead of factual arguments.
Impossible Expectations: Demanding 100% certainty before accepting scientific conclusions. (Science is always refining, not absolute.)
Cherry-Picking: Highlighting a single study or data point that contradicts the overwhelming scientific consensus, ignoring the full body of evidence.
Conspiracy Theories: Claiming scientists are hiding “the truth” for profit or control. If every major scientific institution in the world agrees on something, the idea that they are all conspiring together is far less likely than the possibility that the evidence is simply strong.

So, how do you talk to someone who denies science? First, stay calm and ask questions. Engaging respectfully encourages critical thinking rather than defensiveness. Finding common ground – whether it’s a shared value or concern – can also open the door for real conversation. When explaining scientific concepts, simple and clear language is far more effective than overwhelming someone with jargon. And never underestimate the power of storytelling. People connect with narratives more than numbers.

Not every discussion will change a mind, and that’s okay. The goal isn’t always to convince the most stubborn deniers but to reach those who are still open to learning. "

 

[Peter T]

I was wondering how the BPS researchers and clinicians with an unshakable belief in ME/CFS as psychogenic and in the infallibility of of psycho behavioural interventions fit into this model?

Though I guess it is relevant to the ‘have you tried yoga?’ encounters too.

 

[Yann04]

To be honest. I can see the Psychobehaviouralists share this same infographic unironically in their circles and say it applies to us.

 

[Kiristar]

I was wondering how the BPS researchers and clinicians with an unshakable belief in ME/CFS as psychogenic and in the infallibility of of psycho behavioural interventions fit into this model?

Though I guess it is relevant to the ‘have you tried yoga?’ encounters too.

I guess their arguments would fit into logical fallacies and cherry picking (Brian Hughes has written some good articles about the fallacy types they use), while @Yann04 is right, I think they would say we fit into cherry picking and conspiracy theories

 

[Yann04]

I guess their arguments would fit into logical fallacies and cherry picking (Brian Hughes has written some good articles about the fallacy types they use), while @Yann04 is right, I think they would say we fit into cherry picking and conspiracy theories

They could also say we fit into
“Straw Man”, “Single Cause”, “Impossible Expectation”, “Anecdote”, “Persecuted Victim” etc.

While we could say the exact same for them…

 

[bobbler]

@Peter T I would say that there are certain personality types who won’t change. Unless it stops being worth their while (eg if some do it because it makes them feel clever or it gives them advantage over others without it being called out and making them look bad)

The important audience is indeed talking ‘about them’ (or to them when there is a group so they aren’t the only person there ) indirectly on this matter to those who would not notice the fallacies but aren’t as keen to believe them or use them to make it less socially acceptable/ not leave bystanders thinking the one who was the most adamant won the argument (lots of those who think like this genuinely think and pride themselves that they are good argues and therefore in the right) but just that they bullied the person who did have the better , right argument

Informing those around said people of these tools so they can spot it when they see it is really important. Most won’t say something to them, no one ever does for reasons including ‘they won’t change and will get grumpy’ , but not giving bystanders the excuse to back them and pretend they can’t see the issue is a vast difference in power. It prevents that emperors new clothes pretending not to see from being an acceptable norm.

Sadly, as this relates to a wider cultural context, I’ve noticed lots of eg wellness people but also others (who don’t realise the implication of what they are saying, knowing such snippets will get repurposed out of context) saying things like it’s ok not to care [eg about news or some outrage] when you are overwhelmed with your own problems. But the thing is that the last part is relative just like what some people call a need vs others would a want etc. (perspective). When it’s that playing your part as a bystander that provides society and moral structure as it nets together.

And just the word ‘science’ (or worse statistics) and particularly when you combine it with the idea of teaching someone about it, is a massive turn off to a huge amount of people.

So I wonder how this, as a bigger idea, could be branded to avoid it seeming like that too much. And focus on the ‘don’t be conned’ type part.

Being able to spot inaccurate science , ironically, needs to be even more accessible than science is. And the communication of why it is so important needs to be made bigger and more relevant to the audience (it could affect you too) than how it can seem when eg we talk about a specific statistical issue in a paper on a specific illness.

I think it’s possible because I saw the sea change from secret apathy re the post office from many before the tv programme vs after the Mr Bates tv show (when if you’d watched it then it would be hard to pretend you didn’t see the issue or couldn’t be sure if it was all unfair etc) when everyone had to say how terrible it was etc.

 

[bobbler]

They could also say we fit into
“Straw Man”, “Single Cause”, “Impossible Expectation”, “Anecdote”, “Persecuted Victim” etc.

While we could say the exact same for them…

It’s an interesting one where I think about whether technically we don’t but you’d need to get across the nuance of each of these for that be be clear to someone.

I watched the Monty python dead parrot sketch right the way through not long ago (didn’t realise there was a part where the customer was sent to another shop) and it’s a very good and pertinent communication of some of these. Distraction is another one - which I guess is the implicit thing behind lots of these , to just distract from the obvious dead parrot by changing the topic and framing until the onlookers gets exhausted talking about something irrelevant

I wasn’t one of those who watched the full lot of them avidly but I know some know their sketches well and am curious how many of their sketches use /play on/are quietly making a joke of this type of fallacial stuff ?

 

[bobbler]

@Peter T I would say that there are certain personality types who won’t change. Unless it stops being worth their while (eg if some do it because it makes them feel clever or it gives them advantage over others without it being called out and making them look bad)

The important audience is indeed talking ‘about them’ (or to them when there is a group so they aren’t the only person there ) indirectly on this matter to those who would not notice the fallacies but aren’t as keen to believe them or use them to make it less socially acceptable/ not leave bystanders thinking the one who was the most adamant won the argument (lots of those who think like this genuinely think and pride themselves that they are good argues and therefore in the right) but just that they bullied the person who did have the better , right argument

Informing those around said people of these tools so they can spot it when they see it is really important. Most won’t say something to them, no one ever does for reasons including ‘they won’t change and will get grumpy’ , but not giving bystanders the excuse to back them and pretend they can’t see the issue is a vast difference in power. It prevents that emperors new clothes pretending not to see from being an acceptable norm.

Sadly, as this relates to a wider cultural context, I’ve noticed lots of eg wellness people but also others (who don’t realise the implication of what they are saying, knowing such snippets will get repurposed out of context) saying things like it’s ok not to care [eg about news or some outrage] when you are overwhelmed with your own problems. But the thing is that the last part is relative just like what some people call a need vs others would a want etc. (perspective). When it’s that playing your part as a bystander that provides society and moral structure as it nets together.

And just the word ‘science’ (or worse statistics) and particularly when you combine it with the idea of teaching someone about it, is a massive turn off to a huge amount of people.

So I wonder how this, as a bigger idea, could be branded to avoid it seeming like that too much. And focus on the ‘don’t be conned’ type part.

Being able to spot inaccurate science , ironically, needs to be even more accessible than science is. And the communication of why it is so important needs to be made bigger and more relevant to the audience (it could affect you too) than how it can seem when eg we talk about a specific statistical issue in a paper on a specific illness.

I think it’s possible because I saw the sea change from secret apathy re the post office from many before the tv programme vs after the Mr Bates tv show (when if you’d watched it then it would be hard to pretend you didn’t see the issue or couldn’t be sure if it was all unfair etc) when everyone had to say how terrible it was etc.

Edit: people particularly don’t like hearing they are wrong when they think they understand something ‘clever’ because the bps explanation has been simple but pretended to be complex (providing lots of satisfaction of feeling clever for getting it whilst not actually being much work). The truth being much harder and more complex means people are not incentivised mostly to learn it and look dumber if they get it a bit wrong because it’s not a memorable story. And most people don’t really want to spend much time on these things.

So whilst I get the being careful to be precise on these things limits of what we know for sure and technicalities etc it’s much simpler to not be that way and just bung a story together. Like the antidepressants ‘brain chemistry serotonin’ thing is still what most will wheel out even though we know that’s not precisely correct.

I haven’t worked out the ‘in’ yet, but we are going to have to get our head around some key one-liners and bigger summaries that we can all be consistent on , even if we add in other bits as relevant.

Because the other important thing is ‘ad populous’ and repetition so if everyone might actually if you are in the know be in agreement but to the listener sounds like they are saying different things and disagree with each other that diminishes us further.

And to think of @Sasha s thread on what can we do in prep for a discovery. We can’t ‘do’ yet but we can prep by pacts in how we organise each other without it being seen that all these thousands of voices that are desperate because they never get listened to now want to say their bit all just do it without some organised ‘hymn sheet’ at the start (to show yes we all agree on this.,,, but also..) in words that are catchy and the repetition will work.

Because that’s what the bps will do and so if there are ten articles or tweets they will all clearly say the same thing making the load on the reader easy. And making it seem like they all agree ‘because experts’

And yes maybe some of the prep could also be on eg what we need as far as at best ‘superfluous’ assumptions or ‘treatments’ we’ve suffered that still aren’t removed. And we can pick the few most convincing, barn door and ‘will connect with laypersons’ points/reasons/suggestions in this and all be joined up on what is needed instead and why etc. and make sure it is inclusive of the spectrum etc.

I note spectrum because that’s one classic fallacy we get played on that you do not see in other illnesses.

And sadly and truthfully is an area where those in the community can be at fault for not being wary of this - playing one off against each other, but aren’t you great because you can x when the other person can’t, maybe those iller have ‘something else’, but you aren’t bed-bound so you can do y etc. But also because resources are scarce and covering the full spectrum seems hard to do if you are just given short air time. But without the ‘story’ covering that: that maltreatment (not mismanaging oneself) or bad luck can mean those mild could become very severe and it’s the same underlying’thing’ got worse laypersons twist this to high heaven. And get it confused with mates they knew who had chronic fatigue etc. and are now triathletes.

But there are other reasons perhaps for this that relate to what medicine, therapists, media puts out. That we might want to dissect.

It’s also tricky because many of us early on probably also thought we could ‘overcome’ and had the whole ‘need some exercise’ etc ideas deep in our psyche that only personal trial and then trial and then trial eventually quashes. So I can see how the one-liners on ‘Hope’ are an easy button press. When the truth of what happens comes with the fatal flaw for communication of sounding infeasible even when I’m saying it about myself and underestimating. Which is why that physiosforme study in the home was so important.

Sorry this is just a lot of musing now!

 

[JemPD]

To be honest. I can see the Psychobehaviouralists share this same infographic unironically in their circles and say it applies to us.

I think they would say that the following applies to us, in fact I think they do say it.

Fake Experts: Using unqualified people to challenge real experts. (Think: “This blogger says vaccines are dangerous!” A blogger claiming vaccines are dangerous isn’t the same as a virologist who has spent decades studying)

Where they feel they are the experts & we the bloggers.

I think this is one of the reasons why we have such a lot of problems getting people to listen to us - because its easier to believe that we are deranged bloggers with weird ideas (for whatever reason), than that so called scinetists & experts who've been in the field for decades are so spectacularly wrong, with cochrane etc supporting them too.