Brian Cox on QandA
"See this point here? NASA didn't fudge that data either!"
So, how do you communicate science to the people who don't want science communicated to them? Perhaps we should not communicate science to them at all, leave them alone, save ourselves the trouble.

But what if those people are making policy decisions that need a good understanding of the process of science? Or what of their views are dangerous?

What if using facts don't work, how do we communicate science? This is our attempt to figure it out. I'm not sure that we found the answer!


  1. I'd recommend having a read of "A Manual for Creating Atheists" (recommended from the Smart Enough to Know Better podcast). Ignoring the religious aspect, it has a lot about engaging in science vs. faith based arguments; a lot of the science-averse arguments seem to fit well here. Would be interesting to see if someone could engage with Malcolm Wallace in this framework.

  2. Thanks Professor! Great resource thanks.

  3. I think a more honest appraisal of the problem would involve two aspects, first a greater empathy and understanding of the other side, and second a greater honesty about the real weakness of science which leads to an understandable generalised skepticism. You are holding up a straw man. Maybe it would be a good idea to stage a conversation which is designed to present the strongest possible counterargument, and then examine that.


Post a Comment