Instead of assuming that science skeptics are motivated by ignorance, or selfishness, we should listen to them and try to understand and address their actual concerns.
Skeptics may make demands for absolute certainty to undermine science and delay action. Critiques may not be in the interest of advancing science and public health, but by someone with an agenda.
Artūrs Logins, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
If you’re committed to a belief, it’s hard to let go. Psychology and philosophy provide different ways to think about how skeptics respond to counterevidence.
Modern science can be difficult or complex for one person to understand and verify, especially a non-scientist. So who should we believe when scientific evidence is met with denial?
Forensic scientists are trained to disprove claims. This sort of thinking is useful when you’re trying to make sense of “miracle cures”, “wonder drugs” and other fantastic claims.
Nobel Laureate Peter Doherty’s new book explores why so many people today selectively reject science, and in the process gives a behind the scenes look at how science really works.
Debunking myths requires an understanding of the psychological research into misinformation. But getting your refutation out in front of lots of eyeballs is a whole other matter. Here, I look at two contrasting…