3 ms·

> Another counterproductive tendency, in my view, is the quest to create a profile of ‘those people’ who engage with conspiracy theories, obsessing over charact

by donatj 5y ago

> Another counterproductive tendency, in my view, is the quest to create a profile of ‘those people’ who engage with conspiracy theories, obsessing over characteristics that make them distinct — especially from the researcher. This othering is, in part, a legacy of a field that has frequently opted to study people drawn in by, say, fantastic stories of alien abductions You know why people don’t trust science? It’s this, the whole article should be about this and not a footnote at the end. It’s condescension, belittling and othering. You don’t get people to believe you and trust you by treating them like they are stupid for not already doing so. Particularly not people on the right, where respect is of more value than social acceptance. You start a conversation with insulting them, why would they listen to anything else you have to say?

_Nat_ 5y ago
Seems like a rough thing for folks who'd want to promote social-unity. Because scientists work by aggressively cutting down bad ideas. The basic mindset calls for being efficient-and-ruthless in identifying-and-eliminating low-quality thinking. If the world were a simpler place where there wasn't much complexity to deal with, then presumably scientists could afford to move along at a slower, more polite pace that doesn't leave anyone behind. But in a complex world where every answer just leads to more questions, scientists simply can't afford to show respect to bad ideas -- even if they would otherwise want to be respectful to others. The result seems to be social-fragmentation: there's not just one cohesive social-group that involves everyone, but rather differing groups with differing standards. This can then be a problem for social-mobility. Because, personally, I like the idea where groups are accessible; for example, I like the idea that anyone who's willing to adopt a scientific-mindset could do so, without barriers-to-entry keeping them out. However, if other folks tend to find scientific-thought caustic and degrading, then this same openness would seem to expose other groups to scientific-thought even if they don't like it, possibly promoting animosity. Worse, this problem isn't simply dichotomous, but rather occurs many times over. For example, not all scientists are working on the same level; there's a lot of fragmentation within the scientific-world, too. A funny consequence of this can be that scientists would reject more advanced science, too. For example, folks around Newton's time might've found ideas from quantum-mechanics and general-relativity to be absurd.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  > Because scientists work by aggressively cutting down bad ideas. The basic mindset calls for being efficient-and-ruthless in identifying-and-eliminating low-quality thinking. Generally, people actually doing the science haven't been condescending, in my experience. You can challenge incorrectness without condescension (and its usually more effective that way.) The condescension comes from the way a certain type of science communicator decides to use the name and gravitas of science to belittle those who don't agree.
  - _Nat_ 5y ago
    > You can challenge incorrectness without condescension (and its usually more effective that way.) In short bursts, sure. Sorta like, if someone believes that Elvis is secretly a lizard-man who is now pretending to be President Biden, then that could be responded to in simple, polite terms that aren't immediately condescending. However, the scientific-community, literature, etc., would tend to be cumulatively dismissive and condescending toward the idea, failing to take it seriously. For example, such an idea wouldn't tend to get a mention in every article that mentions President Biden, even if proponents of the idea might continue to hold a strong interest in that belief. This might lead to folks who'd hold such a belief continuing to find the literature dismissive and condescending toward their beliefs, even if no-one overtly makes rude comments on the topic. But even avoiding rudeness is unrealistic. For example, someone who believes that Elvis is a lizard-man who is now pretending to be President Biden, and they start advertising their idea everywhere -- say on Wikipedia-articles and in comment-sections of articles -- how does one respond to that? If they're treated politely and accepted, then everything gets bogged down with non-sense. Eventually, everything's covered with conspiracy-theories about how President Biden's secretly a lizard-man, or a fish-man, or a real man pretending to be a lizard-man, or an alien pretending to be an AI pretending to be a fish, etc., and then everything's just noise.
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      > Sorta like, if someone believes that Elvis is secretly a lizard-man who is now pretending to be President Biden, then that could be responded to in simple, polite terms that aren't immediately condescending. You JUST did the exact thing I am talking about. You equated having an incorrect understanding of science with believing Biden is a lizard man Elvis. You aren't conducting science, explaining science, or even challenging incorrect scientific beliefs. You are using science as a bludgeon to demean people you don't agree with. It is OK to be wrong and it is OK to entertain incorrect ideas. These are critical parts of learning. It is also OK to say when things are wrong. Mocking people for being wrong is alienating and counter productive.

by donatj 5y ago

_Nat_ 5y ago

Seems like a rough thing for folks who'd want to promote social-unity. Because scientists work by aggressively cutting down bad ideas. The basic mindset calls for being efficient-and-ruthless in identifying-and-eliminating low-quality thinking. If the world were a simpler place where there wasn't much complexity to deal with, then presumably scientists could afford to move along at a slower, more polite pace that doesn't leave anyone behind. But in a complex world where every answer just leads to more questions, scientists simply can't afford to show respect to bad ideas -- even if they would otherwise want to be respectful to others. The result seems to be social-fragmentation: there's not just one cohesive social-group that involves everyone, but rather differing groups with differing standards. This can then be a problem for social-mobility. Because, personally, I like the idea where groups are accessible; for example, I like the idea that anyone who's willing to adopt a scientific-mindset could do so, without barriers-to-entry keeping them out. However, if other folks tend to find scientific-thought caustic and degrading, then this same openness would seem to expose other groups to scientific-thought even if they don't like it, possibly promoting animosity. Worse, this problem isn't simply dichotomous, but rather occurs many times over. For example, not all scientists are working on the same level; there's a lot of fragmentation within the scientific-world, too. A funny consequence of this can be that scientists would reject more advanced science, too. For example, folks around Newton's time might've found ideas from quantum-mechanics and general-relativity to be absurd.

shkkmo 5y ago
> Because scientists work by aggressively cutting down bad ideas. The basic mindset calls for being efficient-and-ruthless in identifying-and-eliminating low-quality thinking. Generally, people actually doing the science haven't been condescending, in my experience. You can challenge incorrectness without condescension (and its usually more effective that way.) The condescension comes from the way a certain type of science communicator decides to use the name and gravitas of science to belittle those who don't agree.
- _Nat_ 5y ago
  > You can challenge incorrectness without condescension (and its usually more effective that way.) In short bursts, sure. Sorta like, if someone believes that Elvis is secretly a lizard-man who is now pretending to be President Biden, then that could be responded to in simple, polite terms that aren't immediately condescending. However, the scientific-community, literature, etc., would tend to be cumulatively dismissive and condescending toward the idea, failing to take it seriously. For example, such an idea wouldn't tend to get a mention in every article that mentions President Biden, even if proponents of the idea might continue to hold a strong interest in that belief. This might lead to folks who'd hold such a belief continuing to find the literature dismissive and condescending toward their beliefs, even if no-one overtly makes rude comments on the topic. But even avoiding rudeness is unrealistic. For example, someone who believes that Elvis is a lizard-man who is now pretending to be President Biden, and they start advertising their idea everywhere -- say on Wikipedia-articles and in comment-sections of articles -- how does one respond to that? If they're treated politely and accepted, then everything gets bogged down with non-sense. Eventually, everything's covered with conspiracy-theories about how President Biden's secretly a lizard-man, or a fish-man, or a real man pretending to be a lizard-man, or an alien pretending to be an AI pretending to be a fish, etc., and then everything's just noise.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    > Sorta like, if someone believes that Elvis is secretly a lizard-man who is now pretending to be President Biden, then that could be responded to in simple, polite terms that aren't immediately condescending. You JUST did the exact thing I am talking about. You equated having an incorrect understanding of science with believing Biden is a lizard man Elvis. You aren't conducting science, explaining science, or even challenging incorrect scientific beliefs. You are using science as a bludgeon to demean people you don't agree with. It is OK to be wrong and it is OK to entertain incorrect ideas. These are critical parts of learning. It is also OK to say when things are wrong. Mocking people for being wrong is alienating and counter productive.