3 ms·

The anti-science crowd is going to be anti-science regardless of how science is reported.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
But good science teaching and reporting can make the anti-science crowd smaller and less politically influential than it would be otherwise.
- Wistar 7y ago
  Perhaps, but overcoming the audience's strong prior commitment to anti-science seems to be a tough haul.
- moron4hire 7y ago
  Got any science to back that up?
dmos62 7y ago
That's misguiding and unproductive. Any group is made up of hard-liners and on-the-fence people, and hard-liners change too, just slower. Being dismissive is as damaging as misinformation. Anti-intellectualism, anti-science, etc. will always attract some people to some degree. Within those constraints there's a world of difference.
- dvtrn 7y ago
  The second paragraph seems to come across as a mere rephrasing of the exact sentiment the comment the first paragraph so passionately rebukes. Care to dissuade me of this, because it seems like you’ve simultaneously concurred with the statement you’ve called misguiding and unproductive.
  - dmos62 7y ago
    Here's a rephrase. You have to be understanding in order to positively influence people. Therefore, it's unproductive to be dismissive. Anti-scientific sentiment as phenomenon will not disappear, but will be shaped by that positive influence. It's misguiding to leave it at saying that the phenomenon will not disappear, because that implies that the groups in question are outside our influence. Edit: if I'm still coming off vague, a sibling to my original comment says what I wanted to say more succinctly.
  - idrios 7y ago
    He's saying that there will always be anti-science people, but individuals who are anti-science will not always stay anti-science, so it is still worth putting in the effort to change their minds
- imvetri 7y ago
  Give it a chance. Question more why the comment is made that way. Not everyone is comfortable in communicating as you did there.
  - dmos62 7y ago
    Are you suggesting we may not be in disagreement? I really think we are.

But good science teaching and reporting can make the anti-science crowd smaller and less politically influential than it would be otherwise.

Wistar 7y ago
Perhaps, but overcoming the audience's strong prior commitment to anti-science seems to be a tough haul.
moron4hire 7y ago
Got any science to back that up?

dmos62 7y ago

That's misguiding and unproductive. Any group is made up of hard-liners and on-the-fence people, and hard-liners change too, just slower. Being dismissive is as damaging as misinformation. Anti-intellectualism, anti-science, etc. will always attract some people to some degree. Within those constraints there's a world of difference.

dvtrn 7y ago
The second paragraph seems to come across as a mere rephrasing of the exact sentiment the comment the first paragraph so passionately rebukes. Care to dissuade me of this, because it seems like you’ve simultaneously concurred with the statement you’ve called misguiding and unproductive.
- dmos62 7y ago
  Here's a rephrase. You have to be understanding in order to positively influence people. Therefore, it's unproductive to be dismissive. Anti-scientific sentiment as phenomenon will not disappear, but will be shaped by that positive influence. It's misguiding to leave it at saying that the phenomenon will not disappear, because that implies that the groups in question are outside our influence. Edit: if I'm still coming off vague, a sibling to my original comment says what I wanted to say more succinctly.
- idrios 7y ago
  He's saying that there will always be anti-science people, but individuals who are anti-science will not always stay anti-science, so it is still worth putting in the effort to change their minds
imvetri 7y ago
Give it a chance. Question more why the comment is made that way. Not everyone is comfortable in communicating as you did there.
- dmos62 7y ago
  Are you suggesting we may not be in disagreement? I really think we are.