What do you think?
Rate this book
How to Talk to a Science Denier: Conversations with Flat Earthers, Climate Deniers, and Others Who Defy Reason
Can we change the minds of science deniers? Encounters with flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, coronavirus truthers, and others.
"Climate change is a hoax--and so is coronavirus." "Vaccines are bad for you." These days, many of our fellow citizens reject scientific expertise and prefer ideology to facts. They are not merely uninformed--they are misinformed. They cite cherry-picked evidence, rely on fake experts, and believe conspiracy theories. How can we convince such people otherwise? How can we get them to change their minds and accept the facts when they don't believe in facts? In this book, Lee McIntyre shows that anyone can fight back against science deniers, and argues that it's important to do so. Science denial can kill.
Drawing on his own experience--including a visit to a Flat Earth convention--as well as academic research, McIntyre outlines the common themes of science denialism, present in misinformation campaigns ranging from tobacco companies' denial in the 1950s that smoking causes lung cancer to today's anti-vaxxers. He describes attempts to use his persuasive powers as a philosopher to convert Flat Earthers; surprising discussions with coal miners; and conversations with a scientist friend about genetically modified organisms in food. McIntyre offers tools and techniques for communicating the truth and values of science, emphasizing that the most important way to reach science deniers is to talk to them calmly and respectfully--to put ourselves out there, and meet them face to face.
"Climate change is a hoax--and so is coronavirus." "Vaccines are bad for you." These days, many of our fellow citizens reject scientific expertise and prefer ideology to facts. They are not merely uninformed--they are misinformed. They cite cherry-picked evidence, rely on fake experts, and believe conspiracy theories. How can we convince such people otherwise? How can we get them to change their minds and accept the facts when they don't believe in facts? In this book, Lee McIntyre shows that anyone can fight back against science deniers, and argues that it's important to do so. Science denial can kill.
Drawing on his own experience--including a visit to a Flat Earth convention--as well as academic research, McIntyre outlines the common themes of science denialism, present in misinformation campaigns ranging from tobacco companies' denial in the 1950s that smoking causes lung cancer to today's anti-vaxxers. He describes attempts to use his persuasive powers as a philosopher to convert Flat Earthers; surprising discussions with coal miners; and conversations with a scientist friend about genetically modified organisms in food. McIntyre offers tools and techniques for communicating the truth and values of science, emphasizing that the most important way to reach science deniers is to talk to them calmly and respectfully--to put ourselves out there, and meet them face to face.
264 pages, Hardcover
First published August 17, 2021
About the author
Lee McIntyre
17 books175 followersI am a philosopher and my goal is to write books that engage our minds and connect with issues that we all care about. In my non-fiction, I am particularly interested in defending science against all forms of science denial and post-truth. In my fiction, I seek to raise moral questions that push us to the limit of what we would do to protect the people we love. It gets me excited when I reach an audience who may never have thought they would like philosophy, but it speaks to them. These days I still do some philosophical scholarship--and I teach ethics--but most days I can be found at my desk writing, with two big German Shepherds snoring at my feet.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 136 reviews
August 17, 2021
As Lee McIntyre reflects in the book, this topic seems even more relevant now than it did prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. We have very effective vaccines that will help us mitigate the harms of COVID-19, yet a shocking proportion of people are hesitant to get vaccinated. A perhaps less-shocking proportion have decried public health measures, like mask mandates, designed to keep people safe. In How to Talk to a Science Denier, McIntyre tries to uncover why people deny science, how those beliefs are formed, and then what techniques will actually be effective in encouraging such people to change those beliefs. McIntyre is a philosophy of science professor, not a psychologist or a scientist himself. So he draws from a lot of references and experts in those fields, along with his anecdotal observations from talking to various flavours of science deniers.
I received an eARC of this book from NetGalley and the publisher in exchange for a review.
McIntyre wants to deliver good news: contrary to some of the prevailing wisdom, the science suggests that science deniers can actually be convinced by facts. He refers to a couple of articles, including one that I’ve used in my English classroom: “Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds” and explains that more recent work hasn’t reproduced the results reported on in these articles. In fact, the research seems to indicate that content rebuttal is effective—at least in online settings. McIntyre goes on to reassure us that if you aren’t an expert in the field in question, then technique rebuttal is also effective: point out, gently and compassionately, the flaws in reasoning that have resulted in the science denier forming these incoherent beliefs. These flaws are 5 in number: “cherrypicking evidence, belief in conspiracy theories, reliance on fake experts (and the denigration of real experts), committing logical errors, and setting impossible expectations for what science can achieve.” As McIntyre chronicles his conversations and explorations of various flavours of science denial, he briefly summarizes how these 5 flaws in reasoning show up within each flavour.
More broadly, this is a book about epistemology and the limits of scientific knowing, as well as the role of healthy debate in our society. McIntyre is keen to point out that a great deal of science denial ultimately rests in a distrust of science, of government, or of some combination of those authorities. This is important, because McIntyre wants to emphasize that most science deniers are not stupid or even necessarily ignorant people (although ignorance/lack of education can be a good starting point for breeding science denial). Rather, these are people who embrace the denial of science as an identity because it provides them comfort in a world that at times seems very random and harsh.
In this way, McIntyre builds up a thesis that he truly only comes to understand through experience. His first attempts to talk to science deniers in situ, at the 2018 International Flat Earth Conference, fumble and fizzle out because, he concludes, he didn’t listen enough. Each subsequent mission to reach out to deniers, then, builds on this experience and results in McIntyre trying to find more common ground and truly understand the nature of the denial in question. At several points, McIntyre cites Peter Boghassian and James Lindsay’s book How to Have Impossible Conversations. I kind of wanted to go take a shower when he did that, because I’ve heard very few good things about Boghassian and Lindsay, and I’ve witnessed firsthand the latter not living up, on Twitter, to the exhortation to really sit down and listen compassionately to people you disagree with. McIntyre seems like a nice and liberal enough guy, but it made me super uncomfortable that he cited those two so favourably. (And more generally, I wasn’t a huge fan of how he kept praising various sources’ books as “terribly important,” and other such adjectives.)
I am all for listening to people who disagree with me on science and seeking to understand their point of view. I have had conversations with vaccine-hesitant people in my life, and this is exactly what I tried to do—I asked them what their concerns were, and I tried to treat them with respect and acknowledge that it’s ok to be concerned and apprehensive about these things. In this sense, I am entirely in agreement with McIntyre (and perhaps, at least in the way he filters it through this book, Boghassian and Lindsay, ugh).
That being said, I do feel uncomfortable when this idea gets extended to conversations about society in general. McIntyre submits that some of the most recent research suggests not showing up to a debate is an unproductive way to combat denial. That made me think of Bill Nye agreeing to debate creationist Ken Ham, and how at the time I scoffed at the idea. Maybe I was wrong. But I also think we need to think carefully about where we draw the line at accepting such debates as valid events. Debating science is one thing, but I don’t want to debate the rights of any particular group of people. Don’t try to debate with me that Black people are human, and don’t try to tell me that, as a trans woman, I don’t or shouldn’t exist. In that sense, even as McIntyre lays the responsibility of communicating with science deniers on the shoulders of scientists, I feel uncomfortable with the possible analogy to be had here—that members of marginalized communities have the responsibility to reach out and communicate better with racists, transphobes, homophobes, etc.
To be clear, McIntyre isn’t saying that. He wisely side-steps that issue by explicitly focusing on science denial and only science denial. At one point, he brings up white supremacy but then rejects any firm comparison between white supremacy and science denial. To me, this signals that he understands there is a qualitative difference between two people disagreeing on a matter of science versus two people disagreeing about the humanity of others. Nevertheless, I do think that discussions about science denial must acknowledge their embedded context of a society that is increasingly suspicious of any form of intellectual discussion around social justice. Just see the backlash against critical race theory (a backlash which Lindsay, incidentally, champions, ugh) and how schools in the United States are “banning” the teaching of critical race theory despite the fact that it isn’t taught in high schools, because it’s a complex field of study usually reserved for grad school. I think it’s a mistake to ignore the fact that the people likely to engage in science denial are also likely to be in favour of “banning” critical race theory, because their flawed reasoning resonates with the 5 flaws McIntyre highlights here.
One element I did find lacking in How to Talk to a Science Denier was a deeper look at science denial within science itself. McIntyre brushes up against this topic in a few areas, such as when he has a conversation with a biologist friend who is, if not anti-GMO food then at least not pro-GMO. This is the kind of thing I’m talking about—the COVID-19 pandemic has shown us nurses and scientists coming out against vaccination, even though these people should be the ones who have the best understanding of vaccine science. But science is a very broad discipline; the general public seems to place an overabundance of trust that if you are a scientist then you know what you’re talking about when you opine on any science. I would have liked to see McIntyre interrogate this idea more thoroughly and examine, for example, scientists who deny climate change. Do they genuinely disbelieve, or are they sowing doubt because it funds their bottom line? This is, after all, one of the ideas McIntyre wants us to understand after reading the book: much science denial these days is political and corporate in its origins, the result of decades of doubt sown by tobacco and then oil companies. Scientists themselves are not immune from such corruption.
In the end, this book is far from a comprehensive guide to the world of science denial (how could it be?). But it’s definitely interesting, and I think for the most part, McIntyre meets the expectations he sets out at the beginning and in the very title of this book. If you are someone like me who is interested in having more fruitful conversations with people who deny or are wary of otherwise accepted scientific views, then this book might hold some answers for you. Yet I think McIntyre would agree that not even this book can be the magic bullet that fixes all our science denial problems. That will take concerted efforts in our institutions, from education (hello) to politics and beyond.
Originally posted on Kara.Reviews, where you can easily browse all my reviews and subscribe to my newsletter.
I received an eARC of this book from NetGalley and the publisher in exchange for a review.
McIntyre wants to deliver good news: contrary to some of the prevailing wisdom, the science suggests that science deniers can actually be convinced by facts. He refers to a couple of articles, including one that I’ve used in my English classroom: “Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds” and explains that more recent work hasn’t reproduced the results reported on in these articles. In fact, the research seems to indicate that content rebuttal is effective—at least in online settings. McIntyre goes on to reassure us that if you aren’t an expert in the field in question, then technique rebuttal is also effective: point out, gently and compassionately, the flaws in reasoning that have resulted in the science denier forming these incoherent beliefs. These flaws are 5 in number: “cherrypicking evidence, belief in conspiracy theories, reliance on fake experts (and the denigration of real experts), committing logical errors, and setting impossible expectations for what science can achieve.” As McIntyre chronicles his conversations and explorations of various flavours of science denial, he briefly summarizes how these 5 flaws in reasoning show up within each flavour.
More broadly, this is a book about epistemology and the limits of scientific knowing, as well as the role of healthy debate in our society. McIntyre is keen to point out that a great deal of science denial ultimately rests in a distrust of science, of government, or of some combination of those authorities. This is important, because McIntyre wants to emphasize that most science deniers are not stupid or even necessarily ignorant people (although ignorance/lack of education can be a good starting point for breeding science denial). Rather, these are people who embrace the denial of science as an identity because it provides them comfort in a world that at times seems very random and harsh.
In this way, McIntyre builds up a thesis that he truly only comes to understand through experience. His first attempts to talk to science deniers in situ, at the 2018 International Flat Earth Conference, fumble and fizzle out because, he concludes, he didn’t listen enough. Each subsequent mission to reach out to deniers, then, builds on this experience and results in McIntyre trying to find more common ground and truly understand the nature of the denial in question. At several points, McIntyre cites Peter Boghassian and James Lindsay’s book How to Have Impossible Conversations. I kind of wanted to go take a shower when he did that, because I’ve heard very few good things about Boghassian and Lindsay, and I’ve witnessed firsthand the latter not living up, on Twitter, to the exhortation to really sit down and listen compassionately to people you disagree with. McIntyre seems like a nice and liberal enough guy, but it made me super uncomfortable that he cited those two so favourably. (And more generally, I wasn’t a huge fan of how he kept praising various sources’ books as “terribly important,” and other such adjectives.)
I am all for listening to people who disagree with me on science and seeking to understand their point of view. I have had conversations with vaccine-hesitant people in my life, and this is exactly what I tried to do—I asked them what their concerns were, and I tried to treat them with respect and acknowledge that it’s ok to be concerned and apprehensive about these things. In this sense, I am entirely in agreement with McIntyre (and perhaps, at least in the way he filters it through this book, Boghassian and Lindsay, ugh).
That being said, I do feel uncomfortable when this idea gets extended to conversations about society in general. McIntyre submits that some of the most recent research suggests not showing up to a debate is an unproductive way to combat denial. That made me think of Bill Nye agreeing to debate creationist Ken Ham, and how at the time I scoffed at the idea. Maybe I was wrong. But I also think we need to think carefully about where we draw the line at accepting such debates as valid events. Debating science is one thing, but I don’t want to debate the rights of any particular group of people. Don’t try to debate with me that Black people are human, and don’t try to tell me that, as a trans woman, I don’t or shouldn’t exist. In that sense, even as McIntyre lays the responsibility of communicating with science deniers on the shoulders of scientists, I feel uncomfortable with the possible analogy to be had here—that members of marginalized communities have the responsibility to reach out and communicate better with racists, transphobes, homophobes, etc.
To be clear, McIntyre isn’t saying that. He wisely side-steps that issue by explicitly focusing on science denial and only science denial. At one point, he brings up white supremacy but then rejects any firm comparison between white supremacy and science denial. To me, this signals that he understands there is a qualitative difference between two people disagreeing on a matter of science versus two people disagreeing about the humanity of others. Nevertheless, I do think that discussions about science denial must acknowledge their embedded context of a society that is increasingly suspicious of any form of intellectual discussion around social justice. Just see the backlash against critical race theory (a backlash which Lindsay, incidentally, champions, ugh) and how schools in the United States are “banning” the teaching of critical race theory despite the fact that it isn’t taught in high schools, because it’s a complex field of study usually reserved for grad school. I think it’s a mistake to ignore the fact that the people likely to engage in science denial are also likely to be in favour of “banning” critical race theory, because their flawed reasoning resonates with the 5 flaws McIntyre highlights here.
One element I did find lacking in How to Talk to a Science Denier was a deeper look at science denial within science itself. McIntyre brushes up against this topic in a few areas, such as when he has a conversation with a biologist friend who is, if not anti-GMO food then at least not pro-GMO. This is the kind of thing I’m talking about—the COVID-19 pandemic has shown us nurses and scientists coming out against vaccination, even though these people should be the ones who have the best understanding of vaccine science. But science is a very broad discipline; the general public seems to place an overabundance of trust that if you are a scientist then you know what you’re talking about when you opine on any science. I would have liked to see McIntyre interrogate this idea more thoroughly and examine, for example, scientists who deny climate change. Do they genuinely disbelieve, or are they sowing doubt because it funds their bottom line? This is, after all, one of the ideas McIntyre wants us to understand after reading the book: much science denial these days is political and corporate in its origins, the result of decades of doubt sown by tobacco and then oil companies. Scientists themselves are not immune from such corruption.
In the end, this book is far from a comprehensive guide to the world of science denial (how could it be?). But it’s definitely interesting, and I think for the most part, McIntyre meets the expectations he sets out at the beginning and in the very title of this book. If you are someone like me who is interested in having more fruitful conversations with people who deny or are wary of otherwise accepted scientific views, then this book might hold some answers for you. Yet I think McIntyre would agree that not even this book can be the magic bullet that fixes all our science denial problems. That will take concerted efforts in our institutions, from education (hello) to politics and beyond.
Originally posted on Kara.Reviews, where you can easily browse all my reviews and subscribe to my newsletter.
March 6, 2023
Given that virtually every climate scientist believes that human activity is warming the planet, how could anyone deny it? The answer is, people don’t necessarily believe what scientists say because they correctly sense that within academia a person can get punished for unorthodox beliefs.
—Steven Pinker
In a world that is becoming increasingly more crazy, I think that the most important thing we have to offer to the world is an unwavering belief in the idea of truth. The power of the belief in the truth, without blinding yourself, is something that has guided us for 2000 years and is the bedrock of western society for the past 400 years. However, I am worried that we are currently losing track of it. So I think, as a theoretical physicist, we have to keep the beacon of truth alive. I think it’s really important for us to keep showing people that truth matters, it exists, it’s worth pursing and that it’s bigger than all of us.
—Nima Arkani-Hamed
واقعیت موحش و دردناک امروز ما این نیست که مشتی شارلاتان، دروغگو، خشکمغز و ثروتمند سودجو حقیقت را عوضی میفهمند و وامینمایند و هرجا فرصتی دست دهد به آن حمله میکنند؛ این است که در نتیجهی چند دهه سیطرهی بلامنازع ایدئولوژی چپ بر نهادهای آموزشی حقیقت اصلا ارزش و اهمیتش را از دست داده. دنیا پر شده از افراد تحصیلکردهای که خیلیشان از صمیم قلب و با نیتی خیرخواهانه باور دارند که با نادیده گرفتن حقیقت میشود به برابری رسید. برای رسیدن به این هدف خاک پاشیدن در صورت حقیقت هم مجاز است. و نه تنها این بلکه الان نهاد آکادمی پر از دانشمندانی است که معتقدند دربارهی شماری از یافتههای علمی باید سکوت و حتی پژوهش علمی در آن زمینهها را به کل متوقف کرد، چون چه بسا از دل نتایجشان "ریسیسم" و "سکسیسم" سربرآورد. یا میگویند ما مجازیم در مواردی دروغ بگوییم یا پنهانکاری کنیم، چنانچه هدف مثلا نجاتِ روایت مسلط دربارهی تغییر اقلیم باشد. ولی انتظار داشتن از چنین کتابی برای باز کردن این بحث بیجا است. وقتی کسی کتابی در مورد انکار علم مینویسد، قاعدتا انتظار دارید در وهلهی اول طرف درک درستی از علم داشته باشد و بداند پروسهی علمی چطور کار میکند. نویسندهی کتاب اما یک فلسفهپیشهی ایدئولوژیک است. از برداشت سادهانگارانه و سادهلوحانهاش از مفاهیمی چون علم و اجماع علمی که بگذریم، سرگرم کردن مخاطب با معتقدان به مسطح بودن زمین و به جایش بیاعتنایی به تمام شکلهای واقعا مهم و خطرناک انکار علم، اگر گواه بلاهت نویسنده نباشد، دستکم دم خروسِ ریاکاریاش را نشان میدهد. مثلا نویسنده هیچ حرفی از انکار تکامل در سراسر طیف ایدئولوژی چپ (از فمینیستها و لیبرالهای برابریخواه تا انواع و اقسام اکتیویستهای چپ و ایدئولوگهای نظریهی انتقادی نژاد و جنسیت) نمیزند؛ انکاری که علاوه بر زیر پا گذاشتن حقیقت، پیامدهای عملی خطرناکی دارد که حقوق و آزادیهای اساسی انسانها را تهدید میکند. از طرف دیگر چون نویسنده درک درستی از علم و اجماع علمی ندارد، هر نوع شکاکیت علمی را، به ویژه اگر جزء جبههی ایدئولوژیک خودش نباشد، به انکار علم تعبیر میکند. نویسنده در بررسی همان شکلهای مد نظرش از انکار علم هم به دام تناقضهای کنفکنندهای میافتد. مثلا در گفتوگو با یکی از شکاکان به محصولات جیاماو، طرف به نویسنده گفته هرچند این محصولات الان آدمهای زیادی را از گرسنگی نجات میدهند، در آینده بحرانزا خواهند شد. نویسنده جواب داده اگر این محصولات تولید نشوند، در مناطقی از دنیا بچهها میمیرند. همین نویسنده وقتی به بحث تغییر اقلیم میرسد گستاخانه میگوید نباید از سوختهای فسیلی استفاده کنیم. ختم کلام. منتها متوجه نیست استدلال کسانی که منکرشان خوانده دقیقا شبیه استدلال خودش در مورد محصولات جیاماو است. آنها میگویند افراد بسیاری زندگیشان وابسته به کار در مثلا معادن زغال سنگ است. به علاوه ما برای تامین انرژی نیازمند سوختهای فسیلی هستیم. تکلیف آن بچههای آفریقایی که زندگیشان بسته به سوختهای فسیلی است چه میشود؟ تکلیف دهها یا صدها میلیون آدم در جمعیت میلیاردی چین چه میشود؟
—Steven Pinker
In a world that is becoming increasingly more crazy, I think that the most important thing we have to offer to the world is an unwavering belief in the idea of truth. The power of the belief in the truth, without blinding yourself, is something that has guided us for 2000 years and is the bedrock of western society for the past 400 years. However, I am worried that we are currently losing track of it. So I think, as a theoretical physicist, we have to keep the beacon of truth alive. I think it’s really important for us to keep showing people that truth matters, it exists, it’s worth pursing and that it’s bigger than all of us.
—Nima Arkani-Hamed
واقعیت موحش و دردناک امروز ما این نیست که مشتی شارلاتان، دروغگو، خشکمغز و ثروتمند سودجو حقیقت را عوضی میفهمند و وامینمایند و هرجا فرصتی دست دهد به آن حمله میکنند؛ این است که در نتیجهی چند دهه سیطرهی بلامنازع ایدئولوژی چپ بر نهادهای آموزشی حقیقت اصلا ارزش و اهمیتش را از دست داده. دنیا پر شده از افراد تحصیلکردهای که خیلیشان از صمیم قلب و با نیتی خیرخواهانه باور دارند که با نادیده گرفتن حقیقت میشود به برابری رسید. برای رسیدن به این هدف خاک پاشیدن در صورت حقیقت هم مجاز است. و نه تنها این بلکه الان نهاد آکادمی پر از دانشمندانی است که معتقدند دربارهی شماری از یافتههای علمی باید سکوت و حتی پژوهش علمی در آن زمینهها را به کل متوقف کرد، چون چه بسا از دل نتایجشان "ریسیسم" و "سکسیسم" سربرآورد. یا میگویند ما مجازیم در مواردی دروغ بگوییم یا پنهانکاری کنیم، چنانچه هدف مثلا نجاتِ روایت مسلط دربارهی تغییر اقلیم باشد. ولی انتظار داشتن از چنین کتابی برای باز کردن این بحث بیجا است. وقتی کسی کتابی در مورد انکار علم مینویسد، قاعدتا انتظار دارید در وهلهی اول طرف درک درستی از علم داشته باشد و بداند پروسهی علمی چطور کار میکند. نویسندهی کتاب اما یک فلسفهپیشهی ایدئولوژیک است. از برداشت سادهانگارانه و سادهلوحانهاش از مفاهیمی چون علم و اجماع علمی که بگذریم، سرگرم کردن مخاطب با معتقدان به مسطح بودن زمین و به جایش بیاعتنایی به تمام شکلهای واقعا مهم و خطرناک انکار علم، اگر گواه بلاهت نویسنده نباشد، دستکم دم خروسِ ریاکاریاش را نشان میدهد. مثلا نویسنده هیچ حرفی از انکار تکامل در سراسر طیف ایدئولوژی چپ (از فمینیستها و لیبرالهای برابریخواه تا انواع و اقسام اکتیویستهای چپ و ایدئولوگهای نظریهی انتقادی نژاد و جنسیت) نمیزند؛ انکاری که علاوه بر زیر پا گذاشتن حقیقت، پیامدهای عملی خطرناکی دارد که حقوق و آزادیهای اساسی انسانها را تهدید میکند. از طرف دیگر چون نویسنده درک درستی از علم و اجماع علمی ندارد، هر نوع شکاکیت علمی را، به ویژه اگر جزء جبههی ایدئولوژیک خودش نباشد، به انکار علم تعبیر میکند. نویسنده در بررسی همان شکلهای مد نظرش از انکار علم هم به دام تناقضهای کنفکنندهای میافتد. مثلا در گفتوگو با یکی از شکاکان به محصولات جیاماو، طرف به نویسنده گفته هرچند این محصولات الان آدمهای زیادی را از گرسنگی نجات میدهند، در آینده بحرانزا خواهند شد. نویسنده جواب داده اگر این محصولات تولید نشوند، در مناطقی از دنیا بچهها میمیرند. همین نویسنده وقتی به بحث تغییر اقلیم میرسد گستاخانه میگوید نباید از سوختهای فسیلی استفاده کنیم. ختم کلام. منتها متوجه نیست استدلال کسانی که منکرشان خوانده دقیقا شبیه استدلال خودش در مورد محصولات جیاماو است. آنها میگویند افراد بسیاری زندگیشان وابسته به کار در مثلا معادن زغال سنگ است. به علاوه ما برای تامین انرژی نیازمند سوختهای فسیلی هستیم. تکلیف آن بچههای آفریقایی که زندگیشان بسته به سوختهای فسیلی است چه میشود؟ تکلیف دهها یا صدها میلیون آدم در جمعیت میلیاردی چین چه میشود؟
August 18, 2021
Anyone who has friends in the US probably has at least one who could be described as a science denier. Lee McIntyre offers us the intriguing promise of delivering 'Conservations with flat earthers, climate deniers and others who defy reason.'
There are certainly elements of this present, which is when the book really comes alive, but the problem for the reader is that (not entirely the author's fault) it doesn't deliver on that promise. The majority of the book, which doesn't involve such conversations, but rather McIntyre's pondering on the matter, seems often to go round and round in circles on the difficulty of doing anything about science deniers' beliefs.
Unfortunately, though McIntyre does get to speak to flat Earthers, he fails to meet any climate change deniers (frankly, he doesn’t try hard - rather than go to a Trump rally, for example, he accesses a self-selected group from a mining community). Similarly his idea of going to a Whole Foods store to talk to GMO science deniers is thwarted by COVID, so he tries a friend who once tried to treat his headache by re-aligning his chakras rather than his requested ibuprofen. She turns out not to be a GMO science denier - making this a bit of a waste of space. A more anti-GMO friend gives more value for money - but even so he isn’t the kind of extreme believer McIntyre uncovers among the flat Earthers.
One thing that worries me is that McIntyre doesn’t seem to see the irony of flying from the US to the Maldives to see how they’re threatened by climate change - I’m sorry, carbon offsetting is just another way of saying there's one rule for the rich - this book is all about how to get the message across, and the only way to do that is to stop flying. Like all too many academics, McIntyre seems to go more for 'do as I say, not as I do' when it comes to responding to climate change.
We spend quite a while trying to discover if there are liberal science deniers (outcome there probably are), but there is no real coverage of liberal science denial in anti-nuclear sentiment and support for organic farming (except in a passing reference to nuclear in a quote from Michael Shermer). This perhaps is reflected in the way McIntyre tiptoes around the sensibilities of liberal science deniers who are anti-GMO - he clearly thinks they’re on a par with climate change deniers, but gives them an easier ride by far.
When it comes to solutions, the book indentifies the key tools of science deniers such as cherry picking, expecting science to deliver the definitive truth and conspiracy theories, but does not give any great ways to deal with a resistant denier who simply says they don't believe your data and you can't prove it, except by winning their trust with a lengthy engagement - which is fine for the occasional friend but it is hard to see how it could help such a divided US, the country which seems to have a particularly big issue with this problem, especially because it seems to be a matter of identity there, rather than logic.
Overall, the book has a worthy aim, but doesn't do what it says on the cover - and fails to do so in a way that isn't particularly readable.
There are certainly elements of this present, which is when the book really comes alive, but the problem for the reader is that (not entirely the author's fault) it doesn't deliver on that promise. The majority of the book, which doesn't involve such conversations, but rather McIntyre's pondering on the matter, seems often to go round and round in circles on the difficulty of doing anything about science deniers' beliefs.
Unfortunately, though McIntyre does get to speak to flat Earthers, he fails to meet any climate change deniers (frankly, he doesn’t try hard - rather than go to a Trump rally, for example, he accesses a self-selected group from a mining community). Similarly his idea of going to a Whole Foods store to talk to GMO science deniers is thwarted by COVID, so he tries a friend who once tried to treat his headache by re-aligning his chakras rather than his requested ibuprofen. She turns out not to be a GMO science denier - making this a bit of a waste of space. A more anti-GMO friend gives more value for money - but even so he isn’t the kind of extreme believer McIntyre uncovers among the flat Earthers.
One thing that worries me is that McIntyre doesn’t seem to see the irony of flying from the US to the Maldives to see how they’re threatened by climate change - I’m sorry, carbon offsetting is just another way of saying there's one rule for the rich - this book is all about how to get the message across, and the only way to do that is to stop flying. Like all too many academics, McIntyre seems to go more for 'do as I say, not as I do' when it comes to responding to climate change.
We spend quite a while trying to discover if there are liberal science deniers (outcome there probably are), but there is no real coverage of liberal science denial in anti-nuclear sentiment and support for organic farming (except in a passing reference to nuclear in a quote from Michael Shermer). This perhaps is reflected in the way McIntyre tiptoes around the sensibilities of liberal science deniers who are anti-GMO - he clearly thinks they’re on a par with climate change deniers, but gives them an easier ride by far.
When it comes to solutions, the book indentifies the key tools of science deniers such as cherry picking, expecting science to deliver the definitive truth and conspiracy theories, but does not give any great ways to deal with a resistant denier who simply says they don't believe your data and you can't prove it, except by winning their trust with a lengthy engagement - which is fine for the occasional friend but it is hard to see how it could help such a divided US, the country which seems to have a particularly big issue with this problem, especially because it seems to be a matter of identity there, rather than logic.
Overall, the book has a worthy aim, but doesn't do what it says on the cover - and fails to do so in a way that isn't particularly readable.
August 15, 2021
How to Talk to a Science Denier: Conversations with Flat Earthers, Climate Deniers and Others Who Defy Reason is a fascinating exploration of philosophy, in particular, epistemology and metaphysics, age-old science, history, politics and the phenomenon of fake news and the way in which they all intersect and interact with one another. Science denial can kill. So how can we change people’s minds? At a time when science is under attack, this question has never mattered more. If you met a science denier in person would you know what to say? Facts don’t convince people, so what does? After 20 years studying science denial from his desk, philosopher of science Lee McIntyre went on the road to talk to Flat Earthers, climate change deniers, and others, about their beliefs. Here, he teaches us how we can effectively argue with science deniers and why it is so important to do so. The rejection of scientific expertise has been one of the most consequential social trends of the 21st century and, for those of us who remain committed to the scientific method, it may also be the most frustrating.
After years of being bombarded with evidence (and often having their intelligence insulted), science deniers seem even more committed to alternative explanations of the world and the leaders who promise to undermine science-based policy. How did we get here and how can we make things better? Drawing on academic research and his own experience—including attending a Flat Earth convention— McIntyre will outline the common themes of science denial and offer tools and techniques for communicating the truth and values of science, emphasising that the best way to reach someone is through personal engagement, which fosters the possibility of building trust through empathy and respect. People are not convinced by facts; they are convinced by facts that are shared by people they trust. Dr Lee McIntyre shares what he learned from studying the ways that science deniers see the world, how we can use those insights to fight that worldview, and why a little bit of good faith goes a long way in communicating with others.
Dr Lee McIntyre, Research Fellow at the Center for Philosophy and History of Science at Boston University, challenges the claim that trying to convince a science denier is an exercise in futility. Indeed, the latest research shows that this is mistaken and that there are effective techniques that can be used to keep someone from becoming a science denier. These strategies can even help people overturn those mistaken beliefs once they are formed. The secret lies in recognizing that even empirical beliefs may be held for reasons that have nothing to do with evidence. McIntyre explains that the best way to convince someone, in this case, is not to berate them, but rather to engage them in an examination of the cognitive and normative reasons why they reject factual evidence in the first place. An exceptionally researched read from start to finish with plenty about how to approach and converse with science deniers and/or conspiracy theorists in all the most prominent areas of denial. A fascinating, informative and eminently readable guide to a thoroughly pervasive topic blighting the world today. Highly recommended.
After years of being bombarded with evidence (and often having their intelligence insulted), science deniers seem even more committed to alternative explanations of the world and the leaders who promise to undermine science-based policy. How did we get here and how can we make things better? Drawing on academic research and his own experience—including attending a Flat Earth convention— McIntyre will outline the common themes of science denial and offer tools and techniques for communicating the truth and values of science, emphasising that the best way to reach someone is through personal engagement, which fosters the possibility of building trust through empathy and respect. People are not convinced by facts; they are convinced by facts that are shared by people they trust. Dr Lee McIntyre shares what he learned from studying the ways that science deniers see the world, how we can use those insights to fight that worldview, and why a little bit of good faith goes a long way in communicating with others.
Dr Lee McIntyre, Research Fellow at the Center for Philosophy and History of Science at Boston University, challenges the claim that trying to convince a science denier is an exercise in futility. Indeed, the latest research shows that this is mistaken and that there are effective techniques that can be used to keep someone from becoming a science denier. These strategies can even help people overturn those mistaken beliefs once they are formed. The secret lies in recognizing that even empirical beliefs may be held for reasons that have nothing to do with evidence. McIntyre explains that the best way to convince someone, in this case, is not to berate them, but rather to engage them in an examination of the cognitive and normative reasons why they reject factual evidence in the first place. An exceptionally researched read from start to finish with plenty about how to approach and converse with science deniers and/or conspiracy theorists in all the most prominent areas of denial. A fascinating, informative and eminently readable guide to a thoroughly pervasive topic blighting the world today. Highly recommended.
March 13, 2022
Painfully neoliberal at times, but there are good bits as well.
The good:
He discusses how science works and how that's very different from how much of the public is taught to view science (i.e. that it's either 100% proof or wrong rather than a process of testing, theorizing, discovering, and revising when necessary.
He stresses the importance of respecting one another, listening, and talking to each other. The sort of thing I need to remember is, "Do I actually want to persuade this person to wear a mask/get vaxxed/etc or do I just want to win?" I don't even like competition, but in stressful situations like a global pandemic, I do sometimes struggle.
He talks to miners about coal and climate change which is really important. Coal miners are often stuck between environmentalists from the city and putting food on their tables.
He visits a flat earther conference in the beginning and that part was just entertaining.
The bad:
He needs to take his own advice. He's very passionate about climate change. Well, he's passionate about the parts he wants to focus on. If someone else (re the gmo discussions) tries to bring up environmental concerns and that conflict with his argument (gmos are always good and safe full stop because they are safe to eat and can help with nutrient deficiency,) he just tosses it aside. If someone brings up monsanto, he brushes it off as science denial despite farmers killing themselves due to monsantos lawsuits or contamination.
He comes off as smug and closed off despite the book being about talking to each other more. No, being concerned about the environmental effects of genetically altering plants and animals is not the same as being anti-vax or vaccine hesitant. Even though he luckily talks to others who disagree, he still always frames it as him bringing them knowledge and not vice versa.
He is very neoliberal and seems to have no analysis of capitalism whatsoever. Kids starving worldwide could all be fed right now. We have the resources, we'd just rather throw them away, hoard them, or steal them than actually feed everyone. We could also feed everyone multiple times over with the food and land we use to exploit trillions of nonhuman animals per year for their flesh and secretions. (He also glosses over animal agriculture being one of the top climate change causes.)
Blah blah I could critique him for hours but at least he's willing to have a conversation. At least he believes in humanity and peoples potential. And I certainly didn't know all of the things I am preaching about in this interview 20 years ago. Someone had to talk to me, too.
The good:
He discusses how science works and how that's very different from how much of the public is taught to view science (i.e. that it's either 100% proof or wrong rather than a process of testing, theorizing, discovering, and revising when necessary.
He stresses the importance of respecting one another, listening, and talking to each other. The sort of thing I need to remember is, "Do I actually want to persuade this person to wear a mask/get vaxxed/etc or do I just want to win?" I don't even like competition, but in stressful situations like a global pandemic, I do sometimes struggle.
He talks to miners about coal and climate change which is really important. Coal miners are often stuck between environmentalists from the city and putting food on their tables.
He visits a flat earther conference in the beginning and that part was just entertaining.
The bad:
He needs to take his own advice. He's very passionate about climate change. Well, he's passionate about the parts he wants to focus on. If someone else (re the gmo discussions) tries to bring up environmental concerns and that conflict with his argument (gmos are always good and safe full stop because they are safe to eat and can help with nutrient deficiency,) he just tosses it aside. If someone brings up monsanto, he brushes it off as science denial despite farmers killing themselves due to monsantos lawsuits or contamination.
He comes off as smug and closed off despite the book being about talking to each other more. No, being concerned about the environmental effects of genetically altering plants and animals is not the same as being anti-vax or vaccine hesitant. Even though he luckily talks to others who disagree, he still always frames it as him bringing them knowledge and not vice versa.
He is very neoliberal and seems to have no analysis of capitalism whatsoever. Kids starving worldwide could all be fed right now. We have the resources, we'd just rather throw them away, hoard them, or steal them than actually feed everyone. We could also feed everyone multiple times over with the food and land we use to exploit trillions of nonhuman animals per year for their flesh and secretions. (He also glosses over animal agriculture being one of the top climate change causes.)
Blah blah I could critique him for hours but at least he's willing to have a conversation. At least he believes in humanity and peoples potential. And I certainly didn't know all of the things I am preaching about in this interview 20 years ago. Someone had to talk to me, too.
July 7, 2022
I had to change my rating from 4 to 5 stars. Initially I ranked it 4, not for content, but dryness. These types of books just tend to be dry. Only authors like Malcolm Gladwell and Oliver Sacks manage to make science-y topics utterly engaging.
But then I realized that I had added two different quotes during my Goodreads status updates, so I felt that warranted extra merit. To wit...
"What evidence, if it existed, would convince you that your theory is wrong?" (falsifiability of a theory)
"Conspiracy-based thinking allows for both confirmation and failure as warrant for your theory."
How to Talk to a Science Denier is a great book. It's both practical and challenging, as it doesn't speak to only one side of the political divide. Sure, Republicans have held the trophy for science denialism for at least the past 40 years. But McIntyre reminds us that liberals too have their own pet conspiracies that aren't well founded.
For instance:
* nuclear energy safety
* GMO safety
* vaccine hesitancy (until COVID-19, antivax was predominantly a "natural parenting" movement)
What I found to be especially convincing in the fallacies of science deniers is in how actual conspiracies or relevant social concerns get woven into the theories to make them stick. For instance, Left and Right alike right now are leery of Big Tech and Big Pharma. Both industries have shown themselves to be duplicitous, favoring profits over public safety in an increasingly deregulated landscape.
Yet these become easy bad guys as a backdrop for conspiracy theories and science denial.
Particularly ominous was McIntyre's prediction that COVID vaccines would likely not be adopted by the far Right. The book was completed just after the 2016 election. He included an update to talk about the state of the US post-election, with new vaccines on the horizon. Oh how right he was.
But then I realized that I had added two different quotes during my Goodreads status updates, so I felt that warranted extra merit. To wit...
"What evidence, if it existed, would convince you that your theory is wrong?" (falsifiability of a theory)
"Conspiracy-based thinking allows for both confirmation and failure as warrant for your theory."
How to Talk to a Science Denier is a great book. It's both practical and challenging, as it doesn't speak to only one side of the political divide. Sure, Republicans have held the trophy for science denialism for at least the past 40 years. But McIntyre reminds us that liberals too have their own pet conspiracies that aren't well founded.
For instance:
* nuclear energy safety
* GMO safety
* vaccine hesitancy (until COVID-19, antivax was predominantly a "natural parenting" movement)
What I found to be especially convincing in the fallacies of science deniers is in how actual conspiracies or relevant social concerns get woven into the theories to make them stick. For instance, Left and Right alike right now are leery of Big Tech and Big Pharma. Both industries have shown themselves to be duplicitous, favoring profits over public safety in an increasingly deregulated landscape.
Yet these become easy bad guys as a backdrop for conspiracy theories and science denial.
Particularly ominous was McIntyre's prediction that COVID vaccines would likely not be adopted by the far Right. The book was completed just after the 2016 election. He included an update to talk about the state of the US post-election, with new vaccines on the horizon. Oh how right he was.
October 11, 2021
I found the author to be very entertaining, especially when he was talking about things like his attending a flat earther's conference. As far as my actually learning methods and techniques to use while conversing with science deniers, I didn't learn a lot.
It basically comes down to treating people with respect, empathy, listening to them and asking them "what about ....." questions. The same techniques I employed in my law enforcement career. I find dealing with inmates flawed views of the world to be very similar to those of science deniers. Absolutely sure of the correctness of their opinions, willing to shout down those who disagree with them, and grandstanding were their methods of being the "alpha" dogs. Very much like I see today in the science deniers.
After years of dealing with those type of inmates, I found it best to not take things personally, to do my best to maintain control of the situation, not get into a shouting match, and to, when possible, walk away. Eventually they will find out that they can't rule the world, and, if not pushed into a corner, come around to a more evolved position.
Thanks to NetGalley for an advance reading copy of this book.
It basically comes down to treating people with respect, empathy, listening to them and asking them "what about ....." questions. The same techniques I employed in my law enforcement career. I find dealing with inmates flawed views of the world to be very similar to those of science deniers. Absolutely sure of the correctness of their opinions, willing to shout down those who disagree with them, and grandstanding were their methods of being the "alpha" dogs. Very much like I see today in the science deniers.
After years of dealing with those type of inmates, I found it best to not take things personally, to do my best to maintain control of the situation, not get into a shouting match, and to, when possible, walk away. Eventually they will find out that they can't rule the world, and, if not pushed into a corner, come around to a more evolved position.
Thanks to NetGalley for an advance reading copy of this book.
September 9, 2023
While the concept behind this book seemed promising, the execution unfortunately falls flat. The author spends too much time recounting mundane personal anecdotes and dwelling on trivial matters. There are also repetitive passages that belabor the same points ad nauseam.
Although the overarching premise had potential, the book fails to deliver any profound insights or compelling arguments. Overall, this book does not make a significant contribution to the discourse on its intended subject. A more skilled writer could perhaps take the germ of this idea and develop it into a substantive work, but this rendition lacks the depth and nuance required to adequately address such a complex topic.
To be fair, the opening section on the Flat Earth movement was engaging and one of the more enjoyable parts of it. I wanted to appreciate this book, but ultimately found it disappointing due to the author's approach and lack of incisive analysis
Although the overarching premise had potential, the book fails to deliver any profound insights or compelling arguments. Overall, this book does not make a significant contribution to the discourse on its intended subject. A more skilled writer could perhaps take the germ of this idea and develop it into a substantive work, but this rendition lacks the depth and nuance required to adequately address such a complex topic.
To be fair, the opening section on the Flat Earth movement was engaging and one of the more enjoyable parts of it. I wanted to appreciate this book, but ultimately found it disappointing due to the author's approach and lack of incisive analysis
January 3, 2024
The government is lying to you and has been lying to you for a very long time. This book has been put out by the feds as a means to silence the free thinkers. Don't you think it's weird that a book refers to nearly half the world as "science deniers"? Science was created by the government. The "laws" of nature do not exist. Gravity is not real and never has been. Objects simply fall to the earth because of inherent weight. Weight can be measured with a crude scale but isn't it funny that gravity has to be calculated using complex "mathematical" equations? Math is not real and was set up to indoctrinate the youth. There cannot be negative numbers, that's just common sense. The sooner the world (and specifically America) WAKES UP, feds the and illuminati will continue to have a firm grasp over our minds. The earth is flat, space isn't real, math and science are fake propaganda and you should not believe anything the government tells you. The author of this book Lee McIntyre, is not a real author. Don't believe me? Look them up. They don't exist and never have. Should have just listed the CIA as the author with how biased and false all of the "truth" in this book is. But, the free thinkers and the truth seekers will be proven right in the end. Be patient brethren, they are attempting to disband us. THE GLOBERS WILL NEVER WIN ✊
May 15, 2022
A very enlightening and interesting book that helps us all understand how to talk with science deniers. Spoiler alert, it boils down to building trust through direct personal engagement, in which we show humility and respect, as we demonstrate transparency and openness about how science works. The author builds up to his thesis through numerous examples, in an open and engaging style that highlights the key to not only talking with science deniers, but working through today's patrician politics and disharmony. A remarkable text that will also help us have difficult conversions and understand that is a continuous process, it cannot be solved with one conversation, but continued engagement. Highly recommended reading!
May 17, 2022
Look more at the subtitle than the title - this book is a casual investigation of what we should be doing, which is having more conversations with our neighbors, regardless of politics.
I've described books as road trips before, and for certain types of books that's a fine thing. A light book that touches on topics, it feels like the author is journaling their investigation while you are reading it. Often it seems the author doesn't have a goal in mind - the journey is the destination. It feels like the wrong approach in this book.
The beginning of the book details a visit to a flat earth convention. The author tells us these folks are serious to hold these beliefs in the face of such overwhelming evidence and outright ridicule. In making this point, he leads us to the best way to reach these folks - how to talk to them.
Having achieved the title goal in the first chapter, the author explores other things - the history behind organized anti-science (tobacco companies) and political polarization. I found this part the most interesting. Tell a story with a chart of numbers and the best predictor of who will get it is the level of math understanding. Use the same numbers but select a polarizing issue (say, gun control vs crime) and the best predictor of who will NOT get it is the strength of belief in a political party. This is confirmation bias - interpreting the information in a way that supports political beliefs. The author states here that data is NOT the way to convince a science denier.
After that, the travelogue wanders into climate change, GMO, masks and vaccines. Here the author loses focus. At times he tries to tie this back to the original point, but other times he just points where he wanted to do more with face-to-face meetings - a near impossibility during lockdown. I also felt the points he did make were weak. Out of a small sample, he found nobody that denied climate change; out of an even smaller sample set, nobody wanted to make laws against GMO, etc. Finally the book was released too soon to really measure anti-vaccine statements; we have much better numbers, opinions and results today. Beyond the first chapter, he didn't document any conversations with "others who defy reason" on these topics.
In summary, the first chapter and a half are excellent, and the bibliography shows promise. The subtitle is accurate - these are conversations, and this is more of a travelogue than a scientific study.
I've described books as road trips before, and for certain types of books that's a fine thing. A light book that touches on topics, it feels like the author is journaling their investigation while you are reading it. Often it seems the author doesn't have a goal in mind - the journey is the destination. It feels like the wrong approach in this book.
The beginning of the book details a visit to a flat earth convention. The author tells us these folks are serious to hold these beliefs in the face of such overwhelming evidence and outright ridicule. In making this point, he leads us to the best way to reach these folks - how to talk to them.
Having achieved the title goal in the first chapter, the author explores other things - the history behind organized anti-science (tobacco companies) and political polarization. I found this part the most interesting. Tell a story with a chart of numbers and the best predictor of who will get it is the level of math understanding. Use the same numbers but select a polarizing issue (say, gun control vs crime) and the best predictor of who will NOT get it is the strength of belief in a political party. This is confirmation bias - interpreting the information in a way that supports political beliefs. The author states here that data is NOT the way to convince a science denier.
After that, the travelogue wanders into climate change, GMO, masks and vaccines. Here the author loses focus. At times he tries to tie this back to the original point, but other times he just points where he wanted to do more with face-to-face meetings - a near impossibility during lockdown. I also felt the points he did make were weak. Out of a small sample, he found nobody that denied climate change; out of an even smaller sample set, nobody wanted to make laws against GMO, etc. Finally the book was released too soon to really measure anti-vaccine statements; we have much better numbers, opinions and results today. Beyond the first chapter, he didn't document any conversations with "others who defy reason" on these topics.
In summary, the first chapter and a half are excellent, and the bibliography shows promise. The subtitle is accurate - these are conversations, and this is more of a travelogue than a scientific study.
June 24, 2021
I was fortunate enough to receive an advanced copy of this book, and I honestly believe it’s one of the most important books of the year. I had never heard of Lee McIntyre, let alone the philosophy of science until I read his previous book The Scientific Attitude, and I fell in love with his writing and way he discusses these topics. As I write this review, we’re getting towards the end of the COVID pandemic, but there are still far too many people who refuse to get vaccinated because they deny science. Science denial is one of the biggest issues we face today, and you can tell that Lee is passionate about figuring out how we can better talk to people who deny science.
The book starts with Lee going to a flat earther convention, and he wants to learn about what they talk about while also having conversations with flat earthers. It’s really interesting hearing about what goes on at the convention and the way these people think. After years of research as well as attending this conference, Lee’s theory is that science denial and conspiratorial thinking is more of an identity issue than an intelligence issue. When he said that, I immediately thought he was onto something because I love to read books about the social sciences, and Lee’s arguments make sense. He provides both scientific research as well as some strong anecdotal evidence that backs this theory, and this gives him a great starting point to teach the reader how to talk to science deniers.
While many books talk about how we need to be more empathetic and compassionate when talking to science deniers, not many people put it into practice. Lee’s passion for educating people about science really shows in this book as he documents the various conversations he has with people. He is extremely transparent about mistakes he makes in conversations, and he reflects on those mistakes in order to better speak to science deniers. At one point, he even talks with a friend who is a scientist that is skeptical of GMOs.
I could go on and on about this book all day, but I just need you to get this book ASAP and buy a copy for a friend as well. Lee helps you get inside the mind of science deniers, explains the political aspect of science denial, and so much more. Again, get this book, and thank me later.
The book starts with Lee going to a flat earther convention, and he wants to learn about what they talk about while also having conversations with flat earthers. It’s really interesting hearing about what goes on at the convention and the way these people think. After years of research as well as attending this conference, Lee’s theory is that science denial and conspiratorial thinking is more of an identity issue than an intelligence issue. When he said that, I immediately thought he was onto something because I love to read books about the social sciences, and Lee’s arguments make sense. He provides both scientific research as well as some strong anecdotal evidence that backs this theory, and this gives him a great starting point to teach the reader how to talk to science deniers.
While many books talk about how we need to be more empathetic and compassionate when talking to science deniers, not many people put it into practice. Lee’s passion for educating people about science really shows in this book as he documents the various conversations he has with people. He is extremely transparent about mistakes he makes in conversations, and he reflects on those mistakes in order to better speak to science deniers. At one point, he even talks with a friend who is a scientist that is skeptical of GMOs.
I could go on and on about this book all day, but I just need you to get this book ASAP and buy a copy for a friend as well. Lee helps you get inside the mind of science deniers, explains the political aspect of science denial, and so much more. Again, get this book, and thank me later.
August 22, 2021
You can probably guess what drew me to this book. As a pastor and public theologian, it has become imperative that I know how to communicate with anti-vax, anti-mask, Qanon conspiracy theorists. And it’s not just because these are people I, as an evangelical Christian leader, need to counter. It’s because these are my people. Somehow, in some way—and you can trace it back to Scopes monkey trial—evangelical Christians became wary of science. (And in the secular realm, McIntyre traces it to cigarette and oil companies trying to effect public opinion on smoking and climate science, respectively.) In recent years, that occasionally healthy skepticism has blown into full-on denial and conspiracy in everything from climate change to COVID. How to Talk to A Science-Denier is a memoir/guidebook that tries to understand why people genuinely and earnestly believe in conspiracy theories and how we can best bring them back to reason.
Author Lee McIntyre is a research fellow at the Center for Philosophy and History of Science at Boston University and an Instructor in Ethics at Harvard Extension School. He has a Ph.D. in philosophy from University of Michigan and his professional interest has always been with the nature of how we obtain and validate scientific knowledge. The very first chapter sets the tone for the book, detailing McIntyre’s experience at a Flat Earth Convention. The conversations he relates range from the normal to the bizarre, highlighting how science-deniers aren’t all mentally ill, stupid, or brainwashed. Many of them live otherwise normal lives. This human element is one that McIntyre latches on. Talking to science-deniers as equals and as people, conversing with a genuine desire to understand their perspective and respecting their position becomes the best way to have any real effect on their beliefs and actions.
How to Talk to a Science-Denier is a thorough, philosophical, and thoughtful. Even though his Ph.D. is in philosophy, McIntyre writes like a sociologist—think of a more-academic and not quite as charismatic version of Malcolm Gladwell. The book is published by a MIT Press and is at about the level you’d expect from an academic publication. It sort of wavers between your typical lay-level, accessible style of writing and true academic treatise. It’s denser than Malcolm Gladwell but its hardly post-graduate philosophy. It’s a bit of a slow read as a result and while I enjoyed it, I think that if McIntyre had reworked this to a more popular-level style, it may have gained more traction. But academic publishing is McIntyre’s wheelhouse, so go with what you know, I guess.
Early on, he makes the case that both content rebuttal and technique rebuttal can be effective in countering science-deniers, if it is done in compassionate manner as a part of genuine conversation. Yelling out talking point and smug gotchas does nothing. Sincerely asking “oh, how do you account for…” actually forces the individual to consider a response. (Theologian sidenote: Jesus was super good at questions like this. ‘Whose face is on this coin?’ ‘Which of these was a neighbor?’)
One thing I wish How to Talk to a Science-Denier had covered more thoroughly is how to talk to a science-denier who themselves are science-experts. Science is a very broad field and experts in science are, by necessity, experts in only narrow, narrow slice of science and may be as ignorant as anyone else in other areas. Yet, having the title of “Doctor” often gives individuals carte blanche for opinions all over the place. COVID has seen a number of doctors promote disproven cures or doctors and nurses be strongly anti-vax. They may the minority, but those are the voices science-deniers lift up as saying “Look, here is a scientist and they agree.”
Overall, How to Talk to a Science-Denier isn’t a cure-all. But it might help you begin some conversations. It’s a not a magic incantation to make the other side see reason, but it just might help you see the other side as human—and understand their motives and reasons. And it might help them understand yours as well.
Author Lee McIntyre is a research fellow at the Center for Philosophy and History of Science at Boston University and an Instructor in Ethics at Harvard Extension School. He has a Ph.D. in philosophy from University of Michigan and his professional interest has always been with the nature of how we obtain and validate scientific knowledge. The very first chapter sets the tone for the book, detailing McIntyre’s experience at a Flat Earth Convention. The conversations he relates range from the normal to the bizarre, highlighting how science-deniers aren’t all mentally ill, stupid, or brainwashed. Many of them live otherwise normal lives. This human element is one that McIntyre latches on. Talking to science-deniers as equals and as people, conversing with a genuine desire to understand their perspective and respecting their position becomes the best way to have any real effect on their beliefs and actions.
How to Talk to a Science-Denier is a thorough, philosophical, and thoughtful. Even though his Ph.D. is in philosophy, McIntyre writes like a sociologist—think of a more-academic and not quite as charismatic version of Malcolm Gladwell. The book is published by a MIT Press and is at about the level you’d expect from an academic publication. It sort of wavers between your typical lay-level, accessible style of writing and true academic treatise. It’s denser than Malcolm Gladwell but its hardly post-graduate philosophy. It’s a bit of a slow read as a result and while I enjoyed it, I think that if McIntyre had reworked this to a more popular-level style, it may have gained more traction. But academic publishing is McIntyre’s wheelhouse, so go with what you know, I guess.
Early on, he makes the case that both content rebuttal and technique rebuttal can be effective in countering science-deniers, if it is done in compassionate manner as a part of genuine conversation. Yelling out talking point and smug gotchas does nothing. Sincerely asking “oh, how do you account for…” actually forces the individual to consider a response. (Theologian sidenote: Jesus was super good at questions like this. ‘Whose face is on this coin?’ ‘Which of these was a neighbor?’)
One thing I wish How to Talk to a Science-Denier had covered more thoroughly is how to talk to a science-denier who themselves are science-experts. Science is a very broad field and experts in science are, by necessity, experts in only narrow, narrow slice of science and may be as ignorant as anyone else in other areas. Yet, having the title of “Doctor” often gives individuals carte blanche for opinions all over the place. COVID has seen a number of doctors promote disproven cures or doctors and nurses be strongly anti-vax. They may the minority, but those are the voices science-deniers lift up as saying “Look, here is a scientist and they agree.”
Overall, How to Talk to a Science-Denier isn’t a cure-all. But it might help you begin some conversations. It’s a not a magic incantation to make the other side see reason, but it just might help you see the other side as human—and understand their motives and reasons. And it might help them understand yours as well.
December 8, 2021
McIntyre jumps right in by relating his experience attending a Flat Earth convention. From this experience his readings on social psychology he is able to distill common traits/arguments of science deniers across the board (climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers, etc.). From this analysis he is able to deduce several strategies for trying to talk with and soften (if not necessarily persuade) science deniers.
I listened to two podcasts that interviewed McIntyre. They were each about an hour long, and are a great way to get the essentials of his approach. However, the book provided more of the detail and reasoning behind his strategies, as well as being just plain interesting all the way through.
I listened to two podcasts that interviewed McIntyre. They were each about an hour long, and are a great way to get the essentials of his approach. However, the book provided more of the detail and reasoning behind his strategies, as well as being just plain interesting all the way through.
April 14, 2021
This might be my favorite book of 2021. As someone who’s obsessed with the psychology/science/philosophy behind cults and conspiracy theory, every page of this book held my acute interest.
While most science denial and conspiracy is tied to conservatives (flat earth, COVID, 5G, climate change), I like how the author also unpacks liberal conspiracy theories (GMOs and until COVID, anti-vax).
He also gives realistic advice on how to have difficult conversations with difficult people as it relates to science denial.
I was actually sad when the book ended.
10/10 recommend this book.
*I was given an ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review*
While most science denial and conspiracy is tied to conservatives (flat earth, COVID, 5G, climate change), I like how the author also unpacks liberal conspiracy theories (GMOs and until COVID, anti-vax).
He also gives realistic advice on how to have difficult conversations with difficult people as it relates to science denial.
I was actually sad when the book ended.
10/10 recommend this book.
*I was given an ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review*
October 4, 2021
His argument seems to break down to -- be respectful, be kind, be interested.
He goes all over-- from a flat earth convention to liberal left denial of the safety of GMOs.
I respect his conclusions, and I have changed some of what I say and the way I say it to the (now few) people in my life who deny climate change, etc. But I was struck by one aspect of his line of thinking-- the people in the Flat Earth society seemed to overwhelmingly have a history of trauma.
I don't deny that that pulls on the heartstrings, and I do think that it's important to keep that in mind. However, I can't help but be reminded of my evangelical days, and the "homosexual ministries" which were meant to help people out of a homosexual lifestyle-- that emphasized how frequent trauma and abuse led to homosexuality, and that that was something we needed to remember when we helped those people.
It helps you, the converter, to remember this truth about people. But it might just be that most people have terrible things behind their eyes. And there's an element of colonialism in all conversion efforts, even when those efforts are necessary.
This book is about how we come to decisions, and how we base our identities. The communities and beliefs that form the supra-organism that all of us are part of. Remember, if you try to change someones mind, you are trying to change their identity. Overall science denial is a matter of community and identity, not facts.
Interestingly absent was the studies on people who have damage to the emotional center of the brain, which renders them unable to make any decisions-- even what cereal to choose.
He goes all over-- from a flat earth convention to liberal left denial of the safety of GMOs.
I respect his conclusions, and I have changed some of what I say and the way I say it to the (now few) people in my life who deny climate change, etc. But I was struck by one aspect of his line of thinking-- the people in the Flat Earth society seemed to overwhelmingly have a history of trauma.
I don't deny that that pulls on the heartstrings, and I do think that it's important to keep that in mind. However, I can't help but be reminded of my evangelical days, and the "homosexual ministries" which were meant to help people out of a homosexual lifestyle-- that emphasized how frequent trauma and abuse led to homosexuality, and that that was something we needed to remember when we helped those people.
It helps you, the converter, to remember this truth about people. But it might just be that most people have terrible things behind their eyes. And there's an element of colonialism in all conversion efforts, even when those efforts are necessary.
This book is about how we come to decisions, and how we base our identities. The communities and beliefs that form the supra-organism that all of us are part of. Remember, if you try to change someones mind, you are trying to change their identity. Overall science denial is a matter of community and identity, not facts.
Interestingly absent was the studies on people who have damage to the emotional center of the brain, which renders them unable to make any decisions-- even what cereal to choose.
October 26, 2021
Worth the price of admission. The author has some good points and suggestions for working with the science-deniers in your life. The key to the book is the five common factors in denying science:
*cherry-picking evidence
*belief in conspiracy theories
*reliance on fake experts (and the denigration of real experts)
*committing logical errors
*setting impossible expectations for what science can achieve
The key message is to communicate, and communicate from a place of love and understanding and not hate. But keep communicating with those in your life.
*cherry-picking evidence
*belief in conspiracy theories
*reliance on fake experts (and the denigration of real experts)
*committing logical errors
*setting impossible expectations for what science can achieve
The key message is to communicate, and communicate from a place of love and understanding and not hate. But keep communicating with those in your life.
January 5, 2024
Great read, informative and all.
My conclusion: scientists must do MORE ! Speak up, come up front, be assertive, educate the nation(s). Otherwise it will get mal-educated by whoever has sth to win from it.
My conclusion: scientists must do MORE ! Speak up, come up front, be assertive, educate the nation(s). Otherwise it will get mal-educated by whoever has sth to win from it.
October 9, 2021
This is a good book, it goes through the science of what we know about science denialism and importantly the limits of what we know. And yes, it provides good advice to be calm and compassionate when talking to science deniers. However, HOW to do this is a bit lacking. I would suggest reading Justin Lee’s Talking Across the Divide on how to practically have such difficult conversations. Still, read this book too.
December 21, 2021
The book starts our strong with a lot of research and science. Then, when we're just about to learn how to talk to a science denier, we're told there is no more science and then the rest of the book is anecdotal and seems like it's putting way too much effort into showing that the author believes science denial exists in the left and right. I started being super excited to learn how to better communicate and left frustrated not feeling I learned anything.
March 19, 2022
Credit where it is due to Lee McIntyre for taking the admirable step of daring to attend a Flat Earth convention and attempt to seriously engage with at least one proponent of that group in a fair-minded and nonjudgmental manner. That willingness to engage is one factor in why I think quite highly of this book, and why I'm willing to give it 5 stars.
True to its title, the book presents the theory and practice of engaging with those who hold onto beliefs that are not scientifically sound. The actual guidelines for how to talk with science deniers are actually quite succinct and straightforward (listen, don't mock/belittle, understand where they're coming from) as are the techniques for questioning/confronting them on their beliefs. If the book was only about the exact specifics of how to conduct this kind of engagement, it probably would have been a bit meagre, so much of the rest of the book concerns itself with exploring and presenting an array of evidence and interesting facts about the psychology and sociological aspects of the many faces of science denial, from the tobacco industry to climate change to the many types of denialism associated with the covid-19 pandemic.
Another point in McIntyre's favour is that he tackles science denial both on the political right and left (and he scores an additional point for illustrating that even though science denial exists on both sides of the political spectrum, it is far more extreme in character and intensity on the right, hey, facts are important!)
I think the thing that most stuck out to me was his recounting of his conversations with two friends who hold some misguided beliefs about GMOs. It was quite riveting to read, especially given that they conveyed the very real discomfort and tension that comes with having these kinds of talks, even I myself felt a bit called out on some of my own feelings about GMOs. I may have some minor issues with some of the moral logic that was on display, but that's an extremely minor complaint, and it says something positive about McIntyre's largely no-BS allowed approach to his efforts at engagement.
Ultimately, what complaints I have don't warrant removing a star. This book is direct, handy, and it gets its key points across memorably and effectively. Recommended for anyone who wants some useful advice for engaging science deniers with the intent of listening or even working to change minds, or for anyone who dreads family reunions because of *that* one aunt or uncle.
True to its title, the book presents the theory and practice of engaging with those who hold onto beliefs that are not scientifically sound. The actual guidelines for how to talk with science deniers are actually quite succinct and straightforward (listen, don't mock/belittle, understand where they're coming from) as are the techniques for questioning/confronting them on their beliefs. If the book was only about the exact specifics of how to conduct this kind of engagement, it probably would have been a bit meagre, so much of the rest of the book concerns itself with exploring and presenting an array of evidence and interesting facts about the psychology and sociological aspects of the many faces of science denial, from the tobacco industry to climate change to the many types of denialism associated with the covid-19 pandemic.
Another point in McIntyre's favour is that he tackles science denial both on the political right and left (and he scores an additional point for illustrating that even though science denial exists on both sides of the political spectrum, it is far more extreme in character and intensity on the right, hey, facts are important!)
I think the thing that most stuck out to me was his recounting of his conversations with two friends who hold some misguided beliefs about GMOs. It was quite riveting to read, especially given that they conveyed the very real discomfort and tension that comes with having these kinds of talks, even I myself felt a bit called out on some of my own feelings about GMOs. I may have some minor issues with some of the moral logic that was on display, but that's an extremely minor complaint, and it says something positive about McIntyre's largely no-BS allowed approach to his efforts at engagement.
Ultimately, what complaints I have don't warrant removing a star. This book is direct, handy, and it gets its key points across memorably and effectively. Recommended for anyone who wants some useful advice for engaging science deniers with the intent of listening or even working to change minds, or for anyone who dreads family reunions because of *that* one aunt or uncle.
Read
December 30, 2021The author makes the case for:
1. Misinformation is harming everyone on the planet
2. It is possible to talk someone out of science denial but it is very difficult
3. We must try to engage with people anyway.
Nothing in here is surprising if you've been following the news, from anti-vaxx to climate change people change their mind if you can convince them to change their identity, facts have nothing to do with it. The only way is to approach people with respect and to make them ponder on their own what do they value.
Basic science education is also a good strategy, get people to understand and be okay with uncertainty and the scientific process of constantly testing hyphotesis and re-evaluating new evidence in order to better understand the world.
The opening chapter when the author attends a flat-earth convention was both alarming and entertaining. You wouldn't believe the things people believe.
1. Misinformation is harming everyone on the planet
2. It is possible to talk someone out of science denial but it is very difficult
3. We must try to engage with people anyway.
Nothing in here is surprising if you've been following the news, from anti-vaxx to climate change people change their mind if you can convince them to change their identity, facts have nothing to do with it. The only way is to approach people with respect and to make them ponder on their own what do they value.
Basic science education is also a good strategy, get people to understand and be okay with uncertainty and the scientific process of constantly testing hyphotesis and re-evaluating new evidence in order to better understand the world.
The opening chapter when the author attends a flat-earth convention was both alarming and entertaining. You wouldn't believe the things people believe.
March 23, 2022
This is an entertaining but kind of unimportant book. I thought it would contain some new insight into the minds of science deniers. Like, a novel or at least well-researched theory of how and why people fall prey to conspiracy theories, etc. Instead, it contains some basic common knowledge like the formula for determining if something is science denial. It tells some funny stories about the author's personal experiences talking with these loony toons. But it's devoid of true investigative journalism or a rigorous scientific approach. Just a personal journey.
The author has his head on straight. but that's the best thing I can say about the book.
I liked it, but if you're looking for something substantive, keep scrolling.
The author has his head on straight. but that's the best thing I can say about the book.
I liked it, but if you're looking for something substantive, keep scrolling.
February 22, 2022
This books fails to deliver what it says in the cover (pandemic played a huge role), but still, the ideas and the way Lee can keep the reader engaged is really appreciated. 4* because it lacked more conversations and more practical techniques on how to reach these people that appear to be detached from reality. It is our duty to put "them on the team that celebrates science".
September 27, 2022
The thing about this book, having read it after the COVID-19 pandemic (or at least after it was not mediated as much), I now understand a lot of the things that I've done wrong when arguing with idiotic antivaxers online. First of all, simply by thinking of them as idiots, we are doing something wrong. We need to understand that they are people, and treat them with compassion, even if we do not agree with them.
Do read this book if you will, at any point, have a conversation with anyone.
Do read this book if you will, at any point, have a conversation with anyone.
December 25, 2022
Really helpful book, can't recommend it enough if you are interested in engaging with science deniers.
Notes:
Not an information deficit problem, people don't need more facts.
Kindness, empathy and listening are what's needed to change people's minds.
Beliefs are foundational to a science deniers identity, that's why it's hard to change people's minds.
5 techniques of denial
1. Cherry picking arguments
2. Belief in conspiracy theories
3. Reliance on fake experts
4. Illogical reasoning
5. Insistence that science must be perfect
Notes:
Not an information deficit problem, people don't need more facts.
Kindness, empathy and listening are what's needed to change people's minds.
Beliefs are foundational to a science deniers identity, that's why it's hard to change people's minds.
5 techniques of denial
1. Cherry picking arguments
2. Belief in conspiracy theories
3. Reliance on fake experts
4. Illogical reasoning
5. Insistence that science must be perfect
October 7, 2021
Much more what I was looking for than I got from other books proclaiming to be on communicating science, and much less antagonistic than the title would suggest. A real winner.
July 11, 2022
It is an ok read, but leans to heavily on other texts and doesnt come to very satisfying conclusions. Would work better as a series of essays, plus the book is very individuallisticy oriented. A system-approach woild be welcome as I see the problems as systemic.
January 11, 2022
Well done, considering the little that is available in the form of credible academic literature on this. Recommended reading for all!
August 19, 2021
While interesting with lots of intriguing stories and anecdotes (Flat Earth conventions and visiting bleached coral in the Maldives being two examples), I'm not sure McIntyre really accomplished what he was going for here. In all of his documented conversations with science deniers, none of them changed their minds. The advice he offers - things like listen with empathy, don't lecture or insult - really apply to talking with anyone, not specifically science deniers. And in the age of Covid-19 and the insane anti-vax movement that is prolonging the pandemic and needlessly killing people, we REALLY need to figure this out.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 136 reviews