- cross-posted to:
- science@mander.xyz
- cross-posted to:
- science@mander.xyz
Evidence shows that shoving data in peoplesā faces doesnāt work to change minds.
As a scientist heavily engaged in science communication, Iāve seen it all.
People have come to my public talks to argue with me that the Big Bang never happened. People have sent me handwritten letters explaining how dark matter means that ghosts are real. People have asked me for my scientific opinion about homeopathyāand scoffed when they didnāt like my answer. People have told me, to my face, that what they just learned on a TV show proves that aliens built the pyramids and that I didnāt understand the science.
People have left comments on my YouTube videos sayingā¦ well, letās not even go there.
I encounter pseudoscience everywhere I go. And I have to admit, it can be frustrating. But in all my years of working with the public, Iāve found a potential strategy. And that strategy doesnāt involve confronting pseudoscience head-on but rather empathizing with why people have pseudoscientific beliefs and finding ways to get them to understand and appreciate the scientific method.
Thatās just empathy. How is basic empathy radical?
It feels like basic empathy is so uncommon in some spheres nowadays that it might be āradicalā
well i guess heās saying that normally empathy requires reciprocity
I have no idea where the author got that idea. No common definition involves anything like reciprocity and I canāt think of a single example where that would be a requirement for someone to be empathic.
iāve heard the opposite, āthey hate us so why should we care about them!ā
so i imagine from something like thatā¦
That is a lack of empathy.
Itās radical because fewer and fewer people are empathetic these days.
I donāt know the origins of that term, but maybe āunconditional empathyā would be a better way of thinking about it? Like, I will empathise with you even if you arenāt prepared to do the same, - and wonāt be withdrawn if you donāt treat me with empathy.