One common feature of various anti-science ideologies is that their adherents lack a sense of scale. #FlatEarthers don't understand distance, #creationists don't understand time, #climate change #denialists don't understand levels of emissions or rate of temperature change, #antivaxers don't understand population morbidity and mortality. Probably other types of looniness with which I'm less familiar have the same underlying problem.
In a way I sympathize with this, because the numbers are so far outside normal human experience. But learn the #math and suddenly everything makes a lot more sense. We're not talking about anything particularly advanced. Just grasp that intution breaks down when measuring something very large or very small.
I've received a lot of comments on this post, in various locations, to the effect of "don't bother, you're never going to convince these people anyway." So this is a copy-and-paste reply. My apologies for the impersonality, and please don't take this as a lack of interest in discussing the finer points of the issue.
Absolutely, there are many people who will never be convinced. I think there are, more or less, three types of people who hold #antivax / #creationist / etc. positions, and two of them are hopeless cases. But the third is a different story.
1. Hardcore believers. For #creationism, this usually boils down to "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." The others are more complicated, although there's often a religious element there too: e.g. "we're made in the image of God so #vaccines are blasphemy" (they never seem to object to wearing glasses, though) or "the Earth is a divine creation and we mere humans could never change the #climate." Once they make their beliefs clear, the best thing to do is walk away. No one in that debate is going to change anyone else's mind.
2. Propagandists. They may or may not believe what they're claiming, but they think they can gain some political advantage by doing so. "If you don't want #woke #liberals telling your kids they come from #monkeys, elect me to the school board!" That kind of thing. You're not going to change their minds either—especially since the #propaganda is often horrible effective—but it may be worth countering it to try to persuade the people they're trying to recruit.
3. People who just don't know any better. Members of the first two groups, particularly #2, are much more sophisticated than they used to be, and a lot of their propaganda is very slick and superficially convincing. So a lot of people with little #scientific #education (or *bad* science education: that's a separate post or ten) fall for it. The longer they believe it, the more resistant they get to alternatives—they can slide into #1 very easily. But if you can catch them at a critical moment, you can *sometimes* bring them around.
I know this is possible, because I've done it. Not often, and less often lately, with the hardening of political identities and the ever-stronger association of profoundly anti-scientific views with one political identity in particular. But it still happens now and then.
Of course if you assume everyone is in group #3, you'll waste a *lot* of time and energy on 1s and 2s. It's really dispiriting to put effort into a clear, simple explanation presented with tolerance and good humor, only to be met with dismissal or mockery or baffled rage. Telling the difference is a survival skill, and a tough one to learn.
No one should feel obligated to tackle every case they encounter, or even most cases. That's a game for the very young, and if you play too much of it you'll get old before your time. (Trust me on this.) But *when you can* ... well, sometimes you win. Those small victories feel pretty good. I have to believe they still matter.
