Share Facebook

Twitter

Whatsapp

Mail

Whatsapp Understanding the way pseudo-scientists think may be the key to refuting their arguments.

In the face of climate change denial and attitudes against vaccinations, scientists have been unravelling what makes a person oppose mainstream scientific thinking. Wendy Zukerman examines the tactics pseudo-scientists use to convince unsuspecting listeners.

Michael Brown is an unlikely character to enter the battle against pseudoscience—fact, fiction and half-truths combined and presented as science. 'I study galaxy evolution, how galaxies formed, grow and evolve,' says the associate professor at Monash University in Melbourne.

Brown spends his days trying to understand how quickly galaxies grow. But his work at the boundary of knowledge has sent him to another boundary: the edge of rational thinking.

The science is the science, and data will see the science out eventually. So in a political fight versus hard physical science, the physical science will eventually win.

'Pseudoscience certainly hasn't necessarily always been my interest,' he says. Engaging in science communication through blogs and social media inadvertently pulled him into the world of anti-scientific thinkers, however. While many of his discussions demonstrate the public's great enthusiasm for science, 'sometimes things get a bit more combative', he says.

Rather than becoming disenchanted by people's lack of engagement with evidence-based thinking, Brown enjoys examing what attracts people to pseudoscience, and the tactics pseudo-scientists use to convince unsuspecting audiences. 'It's a fascinating insight into the differences between science and pseudoscience,' he says.

Listen: Why do we ignore climate change?

In the face of climate change denial and the anti-vaccination movement, unravelling what makes a person reject scientific evidence has become an important area of research. In 2014, 22 per cent of Australians surveyed agreed with the statement 'I have serious doubts about whether climate change is occurring', while over half agreed that 'there are too many conflicting opinions for the public to be confident about claims made around climate change'.

Meanwhile, other research has found that conservative white males are more likely to deny climate change than other demographics. In 2011, a seminal paper titled Cool Dudes analysed surveys on attitudes to global warming in the United States between 2001 and 2010. The authors found that around 30 percent of conservative white males believed global warming is a furphy compared to only 7.4 per cent of all other adults.

This trend is largely attributed to a phenomenon known as 'the white male effect' whereby males are, in general, more likely to accept risks—be they technological, environmental or health related.

'Perhaps white males see less risk in the world because they create, manage, control, and benefit from so much of it,' wrote Paul Slovic, now a professor of psychology at the University of Oregon, and his colleagues in a 1994 paper. 'Perhaps women and non-white men see the world as more dangerous because in many ways they are more vulnerable, because they benefit less from many of its technologies and institutions, and because they have less power and control.'

Brown is quick to point out, however, that there is 'a broad spectrum' of climate denial. 'Certainly there are women who do some pretty cranky climate pseudo-science,' he says.

Listen: Meet the magician who challenges pseudoscience

In analysing opponents of mainstream scientific thinking, Brown says 'A classic tactic of pseudoscience is something known as the Gish Gallop, which is to present rapid-fire short arguments which are either partial truths or truths which omit key facts, or sometimes things that are just plain wrong.'

Sometimes pseudo-scientists will mistakenly present a logical fallacy. 'You suddenly realise, "Oh, here is a poor use of logic,"' he says. For example, people may be fooled by the trickery of the association fallacy, also known as 'guilt by association'. This happens when someone connects a specific idea with someone or something in order to place guilt on another person. For example, Hippies believe in climate change, and I don't trust Hippies. Therefore, I don't believe in climate change.

Brown's favourite example, however, is the so called 'Galileo Gambit': 'Galileo was ridiculed for his beliefs, I've been ridiculed for my beliefs, thus I am a worthy of comparison with Galileo.'

'Apart from the poor reasoning, it overlooks that Galileo, a scientist, was being ridiculed by the theologically and politically powerful.'

According to Brown, other common fallacies trotted out by pseudo-scientists include arguing to extremes and setting up straw men.

Although much effort is being put into studying the thought patterns of those who reject science, Brown acknowledges that 'it's very rare to change someone's mind if it is that firmly made up'.

Still, the research is beginning to bear fruit. For example, studies have found that people are more likely to accept scientific propositions if they believe there is scientific consensus on a topic. And a paper published in Plos One earlier this year reported that communicating with very specific messages—'97.5 per cent of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening' compared with 'an overwhelming majority of climate scientist'—is much more effective at swaying the public.

Additionally, Brown says that understanding the tactics adopted by pseudo-scientists allows him to warn trusting listeners. 'I can discuss "here is how a pseudo-scientist might try and convince you of their pseudoscience and why this approach might be wrong",' he says.

Overall, the astronomer is optimistic about the power of scientific thinking. While the pseudo-scientists may have their moments in the limelight, he believes that evidence will ultimately win the day. 'The pseudo-scientists present their arguments, and sometimes it gains political currency,' he says. 'But the science is the science, and data will see the science out eventually. So in a political fight versus hard physical science, the physical science will eventually win.'

The battle against pseudoscience Listen to the The Science Show to hear Dr Michael Brown discuss the common arguments presented by pseudo-scientists.

The Science Show gives Australians unique insights into the latest scientific research and debate, from the physics of cricket to prime ministerial biorhythms.

