If your audience is stupid, tell them to stfu and listen to the science. They’re too dumb to think about why they believe anything, they just need to be told what to believe. So as a bulwark against religious superstition, you tell them to stfu and listen to science.
If your audience is intelligent, then there’s no risk of them being suckered in by religious superstition, then you can have a discussion about the merits and processes of current scientific methods and theories, differing viewpoints, and degrees of confidence in the scientific community.
This applies to a lot of topics.
Talking to a stupid independent voter? “Vote for Biden or Trump will destroy democracy.” Talking to a smart independent voter? “Biden is definitely wrong on several issues, we should try to push him in a better direction.”
Talking to a stupid computer user? “Don’t try to change any of these files.” Talking to a smart computer user? “Here’s what happens when you change these files.”
To a stupid person, about the economy: “listen to the data!”
To a smart person, about the economy: “The metrics which the CPI uses are flawed.”
Etc etc. There’s always a complex, nuanced, correct answer, and a simple, straightforward, wrong answer. Because reality is complicated. So for stupid people you give them a simple, straightforward, mostly true answer to combat the simple, straightforward false one vying for their pair of brain cells.
True, but I feel like this should be saved for the dumbest of the dumb. Too much cringe has been created by things like Rational Wiki inadvertently getting otherwise intelligent people to believe that doing science is just the ability to shout the name of a fallacy you feel your opponent has committed, whilst oversimplifying anything you don’t understand until it sounds stupid… Ya know like Evangelical Fundementalists do to defend their biblical literalism?
It has culminated into a behavior I like to call the Fallacy Fallacy
It leads to shit like this
Normal Person: The doctor says I have cancer, but it’s still treatable, so I should take this medicine, it’s expensive, but it’ll be worth it.
Scientism Worshipper: I dunno, you think you have cancer because the doctor told you? Sounds like an appeal to authority.
Normal Person: Look, my aunt ignored her diagnosis and she was terminal within weeks and dead within days after that. I’m not taking any chance
Scientism Worshipper: Hrmm… So the only thing that has you trusting this doctor is anecdotal evidence?
Normal Person: You’re right! These meds are too expensive anyway
-Weeks Later-
Scientism Later: Well my friend is dead
Third Party: Because you killed him, he died because he didn’t take his medicine…
Scientism Worshipper: CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION YOU BIBLE-THUMPER! GO BACK TO WORSHIPPING YOUR SKY-DADDY SHEEPLE!
That’s a Strawman in and of itself, but you get my point
Now it may sound like “Well, I guess we shouldn’t question the science then.”
No, always question the science, that’s how you do science. The problem comes when you think you’ve mastered the science so well (despite evidence to the contrary) that you refuse to let what you know to be questioned.
It sounds to me like they should be at the “stfu and listen to science” little kids’ table if they’re in danger of falling victim to superstitious bullshit.
I think, as long as people have normally functioning brains, it is possible for them to understand. And I think nurturing critical thinking is an important aspect of how to approach this.
You can absolutely present a complicated topic to someone who isn’t educated in that field, or even has low education at all, if you are being humble about how you explain it and try to meet them at eye-level.
You don’t need to give definitive answers, you may give recommendations, but you can always explain a bit and note that there is also a lot more to it than what you explained and that one must take care before making some further conclusions.
Interested people in your audience then have some first basis and grasp of a topic and can take it up on themselves to dive deeper; for example, by asking questions or finding further sources (you might refer them to these).
You can absolutely present a complicated topic to someone who isn’t educated in that field, or even has low education at all, if you are being humble about how you explain it and try to meet them at eye-level.
I vehemently disagree. Some people (maybe most people) are too stupid to understand nuance. They need to be told what to think.
Perhaps this is just a failing of our educational system and not a fact of human psychology, but it’s still the condition of the world today.
Depends on your audience.
If your audience is stupid, tell them to stfu and listen to the science. They’re too dumb to think about why they believe anything, they just need to be told what to believe. So as a bulwark against religious superstition, you tell them to stfu and listen to science.
If your audience is intelligent, then there’s no risk of them being suckered in by religious superstition, then you can have a discussion about the merits and processes of current scientific methods and theories, differing viewpoints, and degrees of confidence in the scientific community.
This applies to a lot of topics.
Talking to a stupid independent voter? “Vote for Biden or Trump will destroy democracy.” Talking to a smart independent voter? “Biden is definitely wrong on several issues, we should try to push him in a better direction.”
Talking to a stupid computer user? “Don’t try to change any of these files.” Talking to a smart computer user? “Here’s what happens when you change these files.”
To a stupid person, about the economy: “listen to the data!”
To a smart person, about the economy: “The metrics which the CPI uses are flawed.”
Etc etc. There’s always a complex, nuanced, correct answer, and a simple, straightforward, wrong answer. Because reality is complicated. So for stupid people you give them a simple, straightforward, mostly true answer to combat the simple, straightforward false one vying for their pair of brain cells.
True, but I feel like this should be saved for the dumbest of the dumb. Too much cringe has been created by things like Rational Wiki inadvertently getting otherwise intelligent people to believe that doing science is just the ability to shout the name of a fallacy you feel your opponent has committed, whilst oversimplifying anything you don’t understand until it sounds stupid… Ya know like Evangelical Fundementalists do to defend their biblical literalism?
It has culminated into a behavior I like to call the Fallacy Fallacy
It leads to shit like this
Normal Person: The doctor says I have cancer, but it’s still treatable, so I should take this medicine, it’s expensive, but it’ll be worth it.
Scientism Worshipper: I dunno, you think you have cancer because the doctor told you? Sounds like an appeal to authority. Normal Person: Look, my aunt ignored her diagnosis and she was terminal within weeks and dead within days after that. I’m not taking any chance
Scientism Worshipper: Hrmm… So the only thing that has you trusting this doctor is anecdotal evidence?
Normal Person: You’re right! These meds are too expensive anyway -Weeks Later-
Scientism Later: Well my friend is dead
Third Party: Because you killed him, he died because he didn’t take his medicine…
Scientism Worshipper: CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION YOU BIBLE-THUMPER! GO BACK TO WORSHIPPING YOUR SKY-DADDY SHEEPLE!
That’s a Strawman in and of itself, but you get my point
Now it may sound like “Well, I guess we shouldn’t question the science then.”
No, always question the science, that’s how you do science. The problem comes when you think you’ve mastered the science so well (despite evidence to the contrary) that you refuse to let what you know to be questioned.
Are these people really “otherwise intelligent” though?
Given that a lot of them are in my writing group, I’m going to say yes.
It sounds to me like they should be at the “stfu and listen to science” little kids’ table if they’re in danger of falling victim to superstitious bullshit.
What is “dumb”? What is “intelligence”?
I think, as long as people have normally functioning brains, it is possible for them to understand. And I think nurturing critical thinking is an important aspect of how to approach this.
You can absolutely present a complicated topic to someone who isn’t educated in that field, or even has low education at all, if you are being humble about how you explain it and try to meet them at eye-level.
You don’t need to give definitive answers, you may give recommendations, but you can always explain a bit and note that there is also a lot more to it than what you explained and that one must take care before making some further conclusions.
Interested people in your audience then have some first basis and grasp of a topic and can take it up on themselves to dive deeper; for example, by asking questions or finding further sources (you might refer them to these).
I vehemently disagree. Some people (maybe most people) are too stupid to understand nuance. They need to be told what to think.
Perhaps this is just a failing of our educational system and not a fact of human psychology, but it’s still the condition of the world today.