5 ms·

A lot of people seem to be saying that you shouldn't talk to people who are familiar with creationism at all. Question: What alternative method is there to rea

A lot of people seem to be saying that you shouldn't talk to people who are familiar with creationism at all. Question: What alternative method is there to reach them? Believe it or not, there are some communities where science isn't readily known. What's the alternative? Refusing to engage sounds not only spiteful but not very useful as you're essentially giving up on a segment of the population while simultaneously getting upset that they don't know better.

joelrunyon 13y ago
Using another example that might help this crowd - this reaction reminds me of an article by Paul Jarvis: "Amateurs get angry with clients. Professionals educate them"[1]. There seem to be a lot of people here that are angry & not a lot of people willing to educate. It's easy to label & categorize a whole group of people (whether clients or people who may be uninformed), but if you have the ability to inform, educate & change their opinion over time and don't try - don't get mad at people for staying uninformed - it's your fault. If you attempt and they're hostile, that's a whole different story, but it's definitely worth attempting. [1] http://99u.com/articles/18303/we-deserve-the-clients-we-get http://99u.com/articles/18303/we-deserve-the-clients-we-get
- mikeash 13y ago
  I think it's a product of the typical nerd black-and-white thinking. People are either raging fundamentalists who take the Bible as literal truth and reject all science that contradicts it, or they are reasonable people who think the Earth is old and evolution happened. In reality, there are a ton of creationists who aren't raging fundamentalists. They aren't creationists because they believe so fervently that they cannot accept any contrary evidence. They're simply creationists because that's all they know. Many of these people, when exposed to the truth in a constructive way, will change their minds. In fact, I was one of those people. My elementary school taught creationism and I believed it because, well, why not? Later on I found out about the scientific explanations, and came to accept them instead. You'll never convince Ken Ham. Nor will you convince his hardcore supporters. That's not the point. The point is to reach out to people who aren't hardcore about it, but who still believe nonsense simply because they don't know any better. And what better way to convince them to listen at all than to involve a religious figure arguing for the other side? How many of these non-fundamentalist creationists would tune in to "Bill Nye Explains Evolution", versus "Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham"? You'll convince lots of them.
  - joelrunyon 13y ago
    > How many of these non-fundamentalist creationists would tune in to "Bill Nye Explains Evolution", versus "Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham"? You'll convince lots of them. I think this is a great point that a lot of people are missing. It's sort of like trying to lay out the features that you like about your product as a developer when realizing that your customer cares nothing about what you like and you have to present / sell it to them in a way completely different to how you would sell it to yourself.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> A lot of people seem to be saying that you shouldn't talk to people who are familiar with creationism at all. No one has said that. Notable amidst the number of errors you've managed to cram into that one sentence, you seem to have confused "people who want to engage in public 'debate' about creationism" with "people who are familiar with creationism at all". The two groups aren't even approximately the same.
- joelrunyon 13y ago
  By "familiar with" I meant "perceive it to be credible." Often they're not quite argumentative as much as people like to make them out to be. Sure there are your Ken Ham types, but there are others that just aren't familiar with evolution & think it means we came from monkeys. Those are people that I think really benefited from hearing Nye talk about it simply & concisely on their level.
dredmorbius 13y ago
I've engaged in discussions of various topics over the years and developed a few guidelines and practices which I try to adhere to. Starting with the "training-wheel" arguments typical of high-school and college age, and evolving through many of technology's "religious wars" (vi vs. emacs, Microsoft vs. Linux, etc. -- particularly the latter). Among them: • Go Socratic. Sometimes the best way to convince someone is to let them argue their own way out of their position. Ask questions rather than make assertions or pound facts. • Realize that often the game isn't to convince. I have positions I hold strongly, most on the basis of experience, evidence, or logic that's convincing to me (and I'm occasionally persuaded to change my mind). But in discussing them with others my objective is often to understand what the basis of their position is. I might learn something. Fairly often, I'll find that the views aren't well-founded or aren't convincing (strengthening my own conclusions). • Distressingly often your'll find that a person's primary argument is "it benefits me to claim this belief despite no rational or factual basis for it" -- it's Upton Sinclair (and Al Gore)'s observation: "It's difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends upon his not understanding it." • Rejection of concepts is often driven by fear. I ran across this passage re-reading Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: "You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt." • Psychology is a hell of a drug. There area all sorts of weird aversions people have. I've met pathological liars. I've met people who simply deny obvious truths. Who feel "it's not a lie if I simply don't say it" (the lie of omission) or "if I only try to draw your attention from it" (lie of distraction). People are rather less rational than you might hope. And for all of that, I've had some pretty amazing, interesting, and productive exchanges, often in the oddest places. Pulled into a highway rest area in the deep south a few years back, started talking with another man there. We both verbally circled for a few minutes trying to suss each other out, then realize that, actually, our views were fairly similar despite the miles that separated us. That was one of the more interesting 45 minute conversations I've had in years. Possibly decades.
lutusp 13y ago
> Question: What alternative method is there to reach them? Oh, that's easy. Instead of confronting their belief system, present them with evidence from the modern world, and carefully guide them from an observation to a scientific conclusion -- but without calling it that. Instead of saying "science opposes religion, and science is right", instead tell the modern story of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Explain that penicillin used to work, but a handful of bacteria were able to resist the penicillin, and those few bacteria, by surviving and procreating, eventually became all the bacteria. Then explain that we tried a different antibiotic which wiped out nearly all the bacteria again -- but not all of them. Again, the few survivors became the new species, and this entire drama played out over a period of years, not millennia, and we observed it happening with microscopes, not fossils, meaning there were no gaps in the fossil record to argue about. Wait until your True Believer has grasped the basic idea, then let him visit a clinic filled with dying children. Then say, "To solve this problem, to save these children, we need to understand and accept evolution, because these bacteria prove that evolution by natural selection is real." There are as many similar examples as there are branches of modern science. Each of the stories can be told in an engaging, narrative way, with real people, in modern times, and it's not even necessary to say "science".

joelrunyon 13y ago

Using another example that might help this crowd - this reaction reminds me of an article by Paul Jarvis: "Amateurs get angry with clients. Professionals educate them"[1]. There seem to be a lot of people here that are angry & not a lot of people willing to educate. It's easy to label & categorize a whole group of people (whether clients or people who may be uninformed), but if you have the ability to inform, educate & change their opinion over time and don't try - don't get mad at people for staying uninformed - it's your fault. If you attempt and they're hostile, that's a whole different story, but it's definitely worth attempting. [1] http://99u.com/articles/18303/we-deserve-the-clients-we-get http://99u.com/articles/18303/we-deserve-the-clients-we-get

mikeash 13y ago
I think it's a product of the typical nerd black-and-white thinking. People are either raging fundamentalists who take the Bible as literal truth and reject all science that contradicts it, or they are reasonable people who think the Earth is old and evolution happened. In reality, there are a ton of creationists who aren't raging fundamentalists. They aren't creationists because they believe so fervently that they cannot accept any contrary evidence. They're simply creationists because that's all they know. Many of these people, when exposed to the truth in a constructive way, will change their minds. In fact, I was one of those people. My elementary school taught creationism and I believed it because, well, why not? Later on I found out about the scientific explanations, and came to accept them instead. You'll never convince Ken Ham. Nor will you convince his hardcore supporters. That's not the point. The point is to reach out to people who aren't hardcore about it, but who still believe nonsense simply because they don't know any better. And what better way to convince them to listen at all than to involve a religious figure arguing for the other side? How many of these non-fundamentalist creationists would tune in to "Bill Nye Explains Evolution", versus "Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham"? You'll convince lots of them.
- joelrunyon 13y ago
  > How many of these non-fundamentalist creationists would tune in to "Bill Nye Explains Evolution", versus "Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham"? You'll convince lots of them. I think this is a great point that a lot of people are missing. It's sort of like trying to lay out the features that you like about your product as a developer when realizing that your customer cares nothing about what you like and you have to present / sell it to them in a way completely different to how you would sell it to yourself.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> A lot of people seem to be saying that you shouldn't talk to people who are familiar with creationism at all. No one has said that. Notable amidst the number of errors you've managed to cram into that one sentence, you seem to have confused "people who want to engage in public 'debate' about creationism" with "people who are familiar with creationism at all". The two groups aren't even approximately the same.

joelrunyon 13y ago
By "familiar with" I meant "perceive it to be credible." Often they're not quite argumentative as much as people like to make them out to be. Sure there are your Ken Ham types, but there are others that just aren't familiar with evolution & think it means we came from monkeys. Those are people that I think really benefited from hearing Nye talk about it simply & concisely on their level.

dredmorbius 13y ago

I've engaged in discussions of various topics over the years and developed a few guidelines and practices which I try to adhere to. Starting with the "training-wheel" arguments typical of high-school and college age, and evolving through many of technology's "religious wars" (vi vs. emacs, Microsoft vs. Linux, etc. -- particularly the latter). Among them: • Go Socratic. Sometimes the best way to convince someone is to let them argue their own way out of their position. Ask questions rather than make assertions or pound facts. • Realize that often the game isn't to convince. I have positions I hold strongly, most on the basis of experience, evidence, or logic that's convincing to me (and I'm occasionally persuaded to change my mind). But in discussing them with others my objective is often to understand what the basis of their position is. I might learn something. Fairly often, I'll find that the views aren't well-founded or aren't convincing (strengthening my own conclusions). • Distressingly often your'll find that a person's primary argument is "it benefits me to claim this belief despite no rational or factual basis for it" -- it's Upton Sinclair (and Al Gore)'s observation: "It's difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends upon his not understanding it." • Rejection of concepts is often driven by fear. I ran across this passage re-reading Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: "You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt." • Psychology is a hell of a drug. There area all sorts of weird aversions people have. I've met pathological liars. I've met people who simply deny obvious truths. Who feel "it's not a lie if I simply don't say it" (the lie of omission) or "if I only try to draw your attention from it" (lie of distraction). People are rather less rational than you might hope. And for all of that, I've had some pretty amazing, interesting, and productive exchanges, often in the oddest places. Pulled into a highway rest area in the deep south a few years back, started talking with another man there. We both verbally circled for a few minutes trying to suss each other out, then realize that, actually, our views were fairly similar despite the miles that separated us. That was one of the more interesting 45 minute conversations I've had in years. Possibly decades.

lutusp 13y ago

> Question: What alternative method is there to reach them? Oh, that's easy. Instead of confronting their belief system, present them with evidence from the modern world, and carefully guide them from an observation to a scientific conclusion -- but without calling it that. Instead of saying "science opposes religion, and science is right", instead tell the modern story of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Explain that penicillin used to work, but a handful of bacteria were able to resist the penicillin, and those few bacteria, by surviving and procreating, eventually became all the bacteria. Then explain that we tried a different antibiotic which wiped out nearly all the bacteria again -- but not all of them. Again, the few survivors became the new species, and this entire drama played out over a period of years, not millennia, and we observed it happening with microscopes, not fossils, meaning there were no gaps in the fossil record to argue about. Wait until your True Believer has grasped the basic idea, then let him visit a clinic filled with dying children. Then say, "To solve this problem, to save these children, we need to understand and accept evolution, because these bacteria prove that evolution by natural selection is real." There are as many similar examples as there are branches of modern science. Each of the stories can be told in an engaging, narrative way, with real people, in modern times, and it's not even necessary to say "science".