Skip to main content

How to Talk to a Science Denier - Lee McIntyre ***

Anyone who has friends in the US probably has at least one who could be described as a science denier. Lee McIntyre offers us the intriguing promise of delivering 'Conservations with flat earthers, climate deniers and others who defy reason.' 

There are certainly elements of this present, which is when the book really comes alive, but the problem for the reader is that (not entirely the author's fault) it doesn't deliver on that promise. The majority of the book, which doesn't involve such conversations, but rather McIntyre's pondering on the matter, seems often to go round and round in circles on the difficulty of doing anything about science deniers' beliefs.

Unfortunately, though McIntyre does get to speak to flat Earthers, he fails to meet any climate change deniers (frankly, he doesn’t try hard - rather than go to a Trump rally, for example, he accesses a self-selected group from a mining community). Similarly his idea of going to a Whole Foods store to talk to GMO science deniers is thwarted by COVID, so he tries a friend who once tried to treat his headache by re-aligning his chakras rather than his requested ibuprofen. She turns out not to be a GMO science denier - making this a bit of a waste of space. A more anti-GMO friend gives more value for money - but even so he isn’t the kind of extreme believer McIntyre uncovers among the flat Earthers.

One thing that worries me is that McIntyre doesn’t seem to see the irony of flying from the US to the Maldives to see how they’re threatened by climate change - I’m sorry, carbon offsetting is just another way of saying there's one rule for the rich - this book is all about how to get the message across, and the only way to do that is to stop flying. Like all too many academics, McIntyre seems to go more for 'do as I say, not as I do' when it comes to responding to climate change.

We spend quite a while trying to discover if there are liberal science deniers (outcome there probably are), but there is no real coverage of liberal science denial in anti-nuclear sentiment and support for organic farming (except in a passing reference to nuclear in a quote from Michael Shermer). This perhaps is reflected in the way McIntyre tiptoes around the sensibilities of liberal science deniers who are anti-GMO - he clearly thinks they’re on a par with climate change deniers, but gives them an easier ride by far. 

When it comes to solutions, the book indentifies the key tools of science deniers such as cherry picking, expecting science to deliver the definitive truth and conspiracy theories, but does not give any great ways to deal with a resistant denier who simply says they don't believe your data and you can't prove it, except by winning their trust with a lengthy engagement - which is fine for the occasional friend but it is hard to see how it could help such a divided US, the country which seems to have a particularly big issue with this problem, especially because it seems to be a matter of identity there, rather than logic.

Overall, the book has a worthy aim, but doesn't do what it says on the cover - and fails to do so in a way that isn't particularly readable.

Hardback: 
Bookshop.org

  

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are
Post a Comment
Read more

Space Oddities - Harry Cliff *****

In this delightfully readable book, Harry Cliff takes us into the anomalies that are starting to make areas of physics seems to be nearing a paradigm shift, just as occurred in the past with relativity and quantum theory. We start with, we are introduced to some past anomalies linked to changes in viewpoint, such as the precession of Mercury (explained by general relativity, though originally blamed on an undiscovered planet near the Sun), and then move on to a few examples of apparent discoveries being wrong: the BICEP2 evidence for inflation (where the result was caused by dust, not the polarisation being studied),  the disappearance of an interesting blip in LHC results, and an apparent mistake in the manipulation of numbers that resulted in alleged discovery of dark matter particles. These are used to explain how statistics plays a part, and the significance of sigmas . We go on to explore a range of anomalies in particle physics and cosmology that may indicate either a breakdown i
Post a Comment
Read more

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re
Post a Comment
Read more