I also think - and suspect TFA agrees here - that taking lunatics (or, more likely, the intentionally dense) seriously emboldens them, and lends their ideas the unearned merit of your efforts. Sartre had something to say about that, too.
I also think - and suspect TFA agrees here - that taking lunatics (or, more likely, the intentionally dense) seriously emboldens them, and lends their ideas the unearned merit of your efforts. Sartre had something to say about that, too.
Treating people like children leads to them acting like children. I am yet to see any evidence that discussion ‘emboldens’ them; rather suppression makes them angry and angry.
Also, I think this view aligns with TFA. Don’t try to convince stupid people because they will just be reactionary. All you can do is give them the evidence, but to do that you need to take their hypothesis seriously.
If you don’t have these experiments or debates, you have 0% chance of changing people’s minds. At least give them a chance.
Yes? When I did science at school we repeated various experiments to prove various Newtonian principles. I'm pretty sure those are settled matters but still useful to demonstrate for educational purposes.
It is a band-aid solution to the demarcation problem that simply doesn’t work. I wish more people would read Lakatos and do reviews using his research programme paradigm. It’s the most reasonable solution we have. Alternatives like peer review are just window dressing.
Treating people like children is exactly what many political leaders do to shepherd their own partisans into continuing to support them and it often works. Fearmongering, lies, emotions. Telling them they need you to protect them.
And are we pretending that the anti-vax movement is now perfectly transparent with information and acts like it's an adult debate where they simply make reasonable points? That this cause wasn't driven people who came into it already convinced, who never took the hypothesis of "this could be an effective way to vaccines" seriously at all?
Not every vaccine skeptic is spouting "it's going to rewrite your dna" or "they're tracking you with microchips" and "it's the mark of the beast" but the nutjobs are a quite significant fraction and none of them ended up there because they went looking for data on clinical trials and didn't find as much as they wanted to.
Some things that I often wonder:
- why are the fundamentals of philosophy not taught as part of standard curriculum?
- why do the fundamentals of philosophy not play a bigger role in journalism and mainstream/official discourse?
- why do few people wonder about this and other obvious(?) things? Might that be related to the preceding points?
- will this ever change, enough to carry the day considering our load of problems (known, unknown, mistaken, etc)?
It may(!) not help her, but it could help you realize that "the future" you are describing is not what you think it is, and if you can realize that maybe you would be better equipped to help your friend.
Rationality and optimism are very useful skills to have in one's kit.
Giving these very stupid views access to the same platform as any rational actor, placing them in the same context as - or even right next to - real actual science or history, is such a poor choice.
You, like many "smart" people, have an air of confidence about you...but if you really think about it, you think there aren't people out there that couldn't absolutely ragdoll you on the intellectual equivalent of a Jiu Jitsu mat, if the above is the type of game you bring?
The best solution is long form debates where the whole thing is available, so each party cannot be taken out of context. If you don’t have these kind of debates people looking for heterodox views will find them anyway and an ‘entertainment’ industry spouting bullshit is created.
You don’t need to put all heterodox views in textbooks, but they shouldn’t be generally shunned because it is counterproductive.
Conspiracists demand the lies.
Look how Fox News lost control of the Big Lie narrative. They (sort of) tried to tell the truth. Their audience rejected them.