Sometimes I think that instead of debunking misinformation* it might be better to simply celebrate what we know and how we know it. So, rather than explain why anti-vaxers (for example) are wrong go into detail about the production process for vaccines.
*Especially maliciously constructed misinformation, that is people who use their limited scientific knowledge to add credibility to 'theories' they know aren't well supported since they want to harm 'established science' for some reason.
Instead of responding to "creation science" ... just do deeper and even more exciting documentaries on how evolution works.
Debunking centers the whole conversation around the wrong topics and ignores all of the things that go into this kind of work that are clever, complex and worth learning about.
This kind of content also serves to help people to "get to know" the people who are doing science and builds the trust that's the real source of these issues.
@futurebird the "science" in the creation science debate, also the "reasoning" in the debate is very far from the point.
the point is a clash of cultures and THAT is what needs to be understood.
the job is to listen to a 'creation scientist' and find out where he is coming from.
i remember listening to that, was it? ken ham? and the bow tie science guy? and ken ham seemed like such a SAD and BRITTLE person. i'd want to know WHY instead of debating him.
It's kind of pointless to argue with someone who thinks you are evil.
If you manage to get a logical point across they can always say you are telling a lie, because you are evil and obviously you'd lie. If you say that what they suggest makes no sense since it would cause harm if they were right they say you WANT to cause harm (because you are evil)
In some cases they recognize that the way that we live might be appealing to people they care about. They don't want their children & women infected with a "woke mind virus" -- it could mean material changes that from their perspective make life worse.
In other cases it's the casual diversity of those presenting the message. This isn't what voices of authority used to look like. It's disorienting for them.
In other cases it's just that no likes to admit they were wrong.
I suspect that many people can be very happy very fulfilled living in a traditionalist framework. Especially those who those frameworks are designed to serve. The good father Head of The Household. But, possibly his upstanding and obedient wife as well. What I ask, and what I guess is too terrifying is that everyone have the option to choose their framework to some degree. For that we can't play the little trick of pretending there is only one way to live.
@futurebird@barrygoldman1 This. I personally know people who get great assurance from knowing their role and that they're fulfilling it absolutely. For someone like that, "Oh, that's your framework, I see things differently and this is mine" can be really undermining. And I don't think that's really false for any of us, but some have a harder time navigating the uncertainty of that than others. That doesn't make the work of imagining new, more inclusive frameworks less necessary, though.
Add comment