LogFAQs > #962792344

darkknight109 posted...

Only one problem - you just described the climate deniers (and the COVID deniers, for that matter) in a nutshell. If someone is anti-science, they're not interested in entertaining ideas they disagree with - by your own admission, that means no meaningful discussion can take place, so why would we waste our time pretending otherwise?

They're actively coming out in to the open to spread their beliefs and arguing with the public they know they're not in agreement with, that's something. When it comes to Joe, his whole thing is bringing in people with beliefs that are otherwise not well-expressed. He brings people in and offers up questions for them to expand on what they think, he makes himself vulnerable to their point of view, so meaningful discussion can happen. Being an influence on many, he is an ideal candidate to sway.

darkknight109 posted...

But on matters where the science is very much settled (and, frequently, the person on the other side of the debate isn't a professional who has anything to offer from a scientific perspective and is instead simply giving their own unfounded conjecture, typically cited from the University of Facebook), why bother?

It's not settled for them. You can tell a colour blind person something is blue and science says it's settled, but if they just see grey, they still think it's grey until you show them what they're unable to see.

darkknight109 posted...

If you don't believe that climate change is real or that vaccines don't cause autism or that Sandy Hook was a real attack and not a government false flag or any one of a number of other conspiracy theories, despite the mountain of evidence proving otherwise, no amount of reasoned arguments from me is going to change your mind.

The evidence isn't credible to them. It's like police stats, people believe them if it suits their beliefs, but don't if they think it suits the police's agenda. You can't convince people that Sandy Hook wasn't a government conspiracy if you can't prove to them that the government couldn't have done it. People will take on unlikely theories if it's about someone or something they don't like/trust.

In the case of autism vaccines, you can't prove it doesn't cause autism from data from scientists when the claim comes from a distrust of scientists in the first place. Some guy claiming vaccines don't cause autism has more credibility to them and less to you, they may not use accurate terms, but when people don't trust scientists, scientific terms look like loaded terms and misdirects.

darkknight109 posted...

Is adjl "convincing enough" to overrule what Joe "feels" is right? Do you not see the inherent problems in that question?

Science doesn't give a shit what you "feel", nor how convincing you are. You're either right or you aren't. Trust us or don't, acknowledge the science or don't, but it won't change reality.

You have to show them that is reality. Your eyes are covered in capillaries but you feel you can see clearly, everything goes through a lens of people's feelings on things. People make real actions off of felt intuitions so if you want to effect real change in people, you have to change how they feel.

Feelings don't care for facts, you have to earn trust to get them to have the right feeling and make real change.

darkknight109 posted...

Hard data is being published daily that backs up what these scientists are saying and it has been cited extensively. The issue isn't that scientists aren't using hard data to establish themselves, it's that morons have convinced themselves that the hard data is fabricated.

Publishing hard data is not the same as using hard data. I can say there's a paper that says coal can be turned in to a super sharp blade, but if a knife maker can't read that paper, that paper doesn't mean anything, they're going to stick to what they know.

I see people stating the data, but it's not presented in a way morons can consume, it could be a cleverly worded manipulation as they don't have the means to understand it, so it makes more sense to them to ignore it.

darkknight109 posted...

Either there is someone in your life who you *do* trust who manages to break through the fog and convince you of the truth, or, more likely, you'll go on believing the lies unless and until life smacks you upside the head for it.

That's why engaging with Joe openly with as much information as possible and ELI5 is so important. He's the person a lot of people trust, his beliefs effect many and there's no clear figurehead above him influencing his beliefs, they are his own so he has authority to challenge them in his own head.

darkknight109 posted...

This becomes a Catch-22, though. Present it in a simple manner (which, yes, has been done) and you'll get someone in the deniers group that actually has a basic grasp of science point out, correctly, "Dude, you're ridiculously oversimplifying it. Are you an idiot? It's way more complicated than that!". Then when you try to clarify and get into the thickets of details, most people's brains shut off because they don't have the knowledge base and educational backing to follow what you're saying. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I'm not seeing the catch there. You first get the morons, then when the smarter one responds, you demonstrate you have a counter at their level too so the morons see you weren't caught out. They don't understand what was said there, but they got the simpler explanation and can see you're confident enough to argue at that level they don't get. The first stage got their confidence so the second stage doesn't drive them off.

The only weakness is a stubborn authority, but you should be arguing with the highest authority in that social group in the first place.