How to Talk to a Science Denier: Conversations with Flat Earthers, Climate Deniers, and Others Who Defy Reason
- Downloads：6732
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2022-07-31 10:51:53
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Lee McIntyre
- ISBN：0262545055
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
Can we change the minds of science deniers？ Encounters with flat earthers， anti-vaxxers， coronavirus truthers， and others。
Climate change is a hoax--and so is coronavirus。 Vaccines are bad for you。 These days， many of our fellow citizens reject scientific expertise and prefer ideology to facts。 They are not merely uninformed--they are misinformed。 They cite cherry-picked evidence， rely on fake experts， and believe conspiracy theories。 How can we convince such people otherwise？ How can we get them to change their minds and accept the facts when they don't believe in facts？ In this book， Lee McIntyre shows that anyone can fight back against science deniers， and argues that it's important to do so。 Science denial can kill。
Drawing on his own experience--including a visit to a Flat Earth convention--as well as academic research， McIntyre outlines the common themes of science denialism， present in misinformation campaigns ranging from tobacco companies' denial in the 1950s that smoking causes lung cancer to today's anti-vaxxers。 He describes attempts to use his persuasive powers as a philosopher to convert Flat Earthers; surprising discussions with coal miners; and conversations with a scientist friend about genetically modified organisms in food。 McIntyre offers tools and techniques for communicating the truth and values of science， emphasizing that the most important way to reach science deniers is to talk to them calmly and respectfully--to put ourselves out there， and meet them face to face。
Climate change is a hoax--and so is coronavirus。 Vaccines are bad for you。 These days， many of our fellow citizens reject scientific expertise and prefer ideology to facts。 They are not merely uninformed--they are misinformed。 They cite cherry-picked evidence， rely on fake experts， and believe conspiracy theories。 How can we convince such people otherwise？ How can we get them to change their minds and accept the facts when they don't believe in facts？ In this book， Lee McIntyre shows that anyone can fight back against science deniers， and argues that it's important to do so。 Science denial can kill。
Drawing on his own experience--including a visit to a Flat Earth convention--as well as academic research， McIntyre outlines the common themes of science denialism， present in misinformation campaigns ranging from tobacco companies' denial in the 1950s that smoking causes lung cancer to today's anti-vaxxers。 He describes attempts to use his persuasive powers as a philosopher to convert Flat Earthers; surprising discussions with coal miners; and conversations with a scientist friend about genetically modified organisms in food。 McIntyre offers tools and techniques for communicating the truth and values of science， emphasizing that the most important way to reach science deniers is to talk to them calmly and respectfully--to put ourselves out there， and meet them face to face。
Reviews
Carmen
，
Kind of misnamed。 This book spent most of its time trying to convince me of the truths of vaccinations， climate change， and GMOs， but I don’t need convincing- I want to convince！ Lee did uncover some tips- graphs and visual data representations help; empathy and person to person relating helps; and letting people come to conclusions in their own time helps。 But really， I fear the true decisive conclusion of the book is， “how do you speak to a science denier？ Unsuccessfully。 Good luck。” 🤦🏼♀️
Ronny Kjelsberg
，
It is an ok read， but leans to heavily on other texts and doesnt come to very satisfying conclusions。 Would work better as a series of essays， plus the book is very individuallisticy oriented。 A system-approach woild be welcome as I see the problems as systemic。
Art Petrenko
，
There are no shortcuts: starting from a relationship of trust， point out logical and content fallacies， listen to them， and realize that self-identity is bound up in these conspiracy theories。 Show how it is possible to have an identity that does not rely on harmful myths。 Do this year in and year out， and you might stand a chance at changing hearts and mind。 A bit dry and repetitive at times， but the author has a thesis and makes it clearly。
Aaron
，
This was an interesting read。 The first 3 chapters were the best， where McIntyre outlines most of his thesis and his experiences at a flat earth convention。He defined a framework that virtually all science denial follows:（1） Cherry-picking evidence（2） Belief in conspiracy theories（3） Reliance on fake experts （and the denigration of real experts）（4） Committing logical errors（5） Setting impossible expectations for what science can achieve"Together， these provide a common blueprint for science deni This was an interesting read。 The first 3 chapters were the best， where McIntyre outlines most of his thesis and his experiences at a flat earth convention。He defined a framework that virtually all science denial follows:（1） Cherry-picking evidence（2） Belief in conspiracy theories（3） Reliance on fake experts （and the denigration of real experts）（4） Committing logical errors（5） Setting impossible expectations for what science can achieve"Together， these provide a common blueprint for science deniers to create a counter-narrative on any topic where they wish to challenge the scientific consensus。"McIntyre touches on the importance of scientific thinking in these chapters as well:"In his 1959 book The Logic of Scientific Discovery， Karl Popper offers his theory of "falsification，" which says that a scientist always sets out to try to falsify their theory， not confirm it。 In my book The Scientific Attitude， I developed a key insight from this， which is that-in order to be a scientist you have to be willing to change your mind on the basis of new evidence。 So how about this for a question: "What evidence， if it existed， would it take to convince you that you were wrong？"""Questioning the consensus （on any scientific topic） does not in and of itself make you a denier。 But refusing to believe the scientific consensus and being unwilling to say what evidence-short of proof-would be sufficient to get you to change your mind is to be a denier。" When anti vaxxers or climate deniers or Flat Earthers insist on proof， that is surely unreasonable。 Empirical inquiry just doesn't work like that。"This question， "what evidence would it take to convince you you're wrong？" reminded me of How To Have Impossible Conversations （street epistemology） and it was gratifying to see that McIntyre later cited this work， having independently landed on that question as an effective conversation tool from his time at the flat earth convention。Next he reviews the literature on how deniers change their mind， cognitive biases and motivated reasoning， showing that there is evidence people do in fact change their mind based on content rebuttal （facts that counter the false narrative） and technique rebuttal （questioning the unreliable epistemology behind a belief formation）。 This is relatively new research that essentially wasn't able to replicate the backfire effect， though this remains a problem for "hard core science deniers"。For hardcore science deniers， the issue is that denying a scientific view has become part of one's identity。 Motivated reasoning is particularly hard to rebut when we engage in identity-protective cognition。 Holding or denying a belief becomes alignment with ones tribe， a moral duty。 The best way to counter this is to build trust before engaging in content rebuttal or technique rebuttal。 McIntyre emphasizes throughout that generally science deniers， however frustrating and at times harmful， are not stupid， lazy， or unlike the rest of us。 We need to show empathy， listen， and find the common values with our interlocutor before trying to change someone's mind。The bulk of the middle of the book covers various topics of science denial， such as climate change denial and anti-GMO （an example of liberal science denialism， whereas the majority of science denial is conservative -- though McIntyre spills a lot of words to show that this is just a historical coincidence and both political sides are equally capable of science denial） ending with the rather bleak recent example of COVID denialism and the post-truth train wreck that is Trumpism。 With each topic， McIntyre examines how it maps onto the denial framework--reliance on conspiracy theories， cherry-picking evidence， reliance on fake experts， setting impossible expectations for science， and using illogical reasoning--and personal conversations he had， showing how he learned to understand deniers from their position。 Distrust of science and the scientific community is both due to a lack of understanding how science actually works， and in the case of COVID poor science communication。"What if we taught people not just what scientists had found， but the process of conjecture， failure， uncertainty， and testing by which they had found it？ Of course scientists make mistakes， but what is special about them is that they embrace an ethos that champions turning to the evidence as a way to learn from them。 What if we educated people about the values of science by demonstrating the importance of the scientist's creed: openness， humility， respect for uncertainty， honesty， transparency， and the courage to expose one's work to rigorous testing？ I believe this kind of science education would do more to defeat science denial than anything else we could do。 It would teach children to think more like scientists and to channel what it means not to know something， then turn to the empirical evidence to find an answer; to work out the predictions of your model and then， if that prediction fails， live by the result。 In this way we might give people an earlier understanding of the value of scientific uncertainty， and appreciate what we can learn from failure。 Within this context， the facts of science might make more sense， and trust in scientists would grow accordingly。 Anything that would encourage more people to identify with scientific values would be a step in the right direction。"The book ends on a fairly hopeful note， that the prevalence of science denialism can be fought by showing empathy and talking。"So the problem of how to deal with science deniers falls to all of us。 Right now。 You cannot change someone's beliefs against their will， nor can you usually get them to admit that there is something they don't already know。 Harder still might be to get them to change their values or identity。 But there is no easier path to take when dealing with science deniers。 We must try to make them understand。 We must try to get them to care。 But first we have to go out there， face-to-face， and begin to talk to them。""The challenges we face are great， but the ingenuity of science is perhaps our greatest means of hope for the future。 But the other is recognition of our common humanity。 When it comes to the consequences from a warm ing planet or a killer pandemic， ultimately we are all on the same team。"Enjoyed reading this book for the various in person anecdotes， but the salient insights covered a lot of the same ground from Post-Truth and How To Have Impossible Conversations。This book is very well researched， he cites a lot of relevant research and the bibliography is huge。 。。。more
Greg
，
Excellent ideas for talking with people who （for reasons I just don't understand） reject science， scientific progress， scientific study， and who don't trust， respect， or appreciate the work scientists themselves are about。 I don't think I'll ever understand how or why someone would reject the best available scientific thinking and the treatments and recommendations that come from it， but then turn around and accept whole cloth the fantastically ridiculous things advocated by people like Joe Roga Excellent ideas for talking with people who （for reasons I just don't understand） reject science， scientific progress， scientific study， and who don't trust， respect， or appreciate the work scientists themselves are about。 I don't think I'll ever understand how or why someone would reject the best available scientific thinking and the treatments and recommendations that come from it， but then turn around and accept whole cloth the fantastically ridiculous things advocated by people like Joe Rogan。 Blows my mind， but the ideas in this book will help when talking with such people。 。。。more
Kenneth Bachmann
，
Not bad。 Just moderately boring。 This seemed to me to be a book that was written from a single page memo with perhaps ten or so bullet points。 The same few themes kept recurring。 I can't say for sure whether the author succeeded or failed in providing a roadmap for doing what the book title proclaims， but my inference after reading the book was: 1。 You can only talk to science deniers with any hope for convincing them about what the current science says if you talk to them one at a time and fac Not bad。 Just moderately boring。 This seemed to me to be a book that was written from a single page memo with perhaps ten or so bullet points。 The same few themes kept recurring。 I can't say for sure whether the author succeeded or failed in providing a roadmap for doing what the book title proclaims， but my inference after reading the book was: 1。 You can only talk to science deniers with any hope for convincing them about what the current science says if you talk to them one at a time and face to face。 Even that strategy doesn't guarantee success， but if you talk to groups of science deniers en masse， you will likely convince no one of anything。 2。 Science deniers are much more likely to believe social media influencers， politicians， and media pundits who spread disinformation， than scientific experts。All-in all， I finished the book hoping that there are a few scientists who will have the energy to do the one-on-ones to help curtail science denialism in the areas of climate change and vaccines， but thinking that there probably aren't。 。。。more
Erica
，
Audio book that I mostly paid attention to on our trip。
Thom
，
Look more at the subtitle than the title - this book is a casual investigation of what we should be doing， which is having more conversations with our neighbors， regardless of politics。I've described books as road trips before， and for certain types of books that's a fine thing。 A light book that touches on topics， it feels like the author is journaling their investigation while you are reading it。 Often it seems the author doesn't have a goal in mind - the journey is the destination。 It feels l Look more at the subtitle than the title - this book is a casual investigation of what we should be doing， which is having more conversations with our neighbors， regardless of politics。I've described books as road trips before， and for certain types of books that's a fine thing。 A light book that touches on topics， it feels like the author is journaling their investigation while you are reading it。 Often it seems the author doesn't have a goal in mind - the journey is the destination。 It feels like the wrong approach in this book。The beginning of the book details a visit to a flat earth convention。 The author tells us these folks are serious to hold these beliefs in the face of such overwhelming evidence and outright ridicule。 In making this point， he leads us to the best way to reach these folks - how to talk to them。Having achieved the title goal in the first chapter， the author explores other things - the history behind organized anti-science （tobacco companies） and political polarization。 I found this part the most interesting。 Tell a story with a chart of numbers and the best predictor of who will get it is the level of math understanding。 Use the same numbers but select a polarizing issue （say， gun control vs crime） and the best predictor of who will NOT get it is the strength of belief in a political party。 This is confirmation bias - interpreting the information in a way that supports political beliefs。 The author states here that data is NOT the way to convince a science denier。After that， the travelogue wanders into climate change， GMO， masks and vaccines。 Here the author loses focus。 At times he tries to tie this back to the original point， but other times he just points where he wanted to do more with face-to-face meetings - a near impossibility during lockdown。 I also felt the points he did make were weak。 Out of a small sample， he found nobody that denied climate change; out of an even smaller sample set， nobody wanted to make laws against GMO， etc。 Finally the book was released too soon to really measure anti-vaccine statements; we have much better numbers， opinions and results today。 Beyond the first chapter， he didn't document any conversations with "others who defy reason" on these topics。In summary， the first chapter and a half are excellent， and the bibliography shows promise。 The subtitle is accurate - these are conversations， and this is more of a travelogue than a scientific study。 。。。more
Paleoanthro
，
A very enlightening and interesting book that helps us all understand how to talk with science deniers。 Spoiler alert， it boils down to building trust through direct personal engagement， in which we show humility and respect， as we demonstrate transparency and openness about how science works。 The author builds up to his thesis through numerous examples， in an open and engaging style that highlights the key to not only talking with science deniers， but working through today's patrician politics A very enlightening and interesting book that helps us all understand how to talk with science deniers。 Spoiler alert， it boils down to building trust through direct personal engagement， in which we show humility and respect， as we demonstrate transparency and openness about how science works。 The author builds up to his thesis through numerous examples， in an open and engaging style that highlights the key to not only talking with science deniers， but working through today's patrician politics and disharmony。 A remarkable text that will also help us have difficult conversions and understand that is a continuous process， it cannot be solved with one conversation， but continued engagement。 Highly recommended reading！ 。。。more
Plamen P。
，
Okay
John
，
Reviewed for Foreword Books Indies Awards。A good read about the common methodology used by science deniers and the rhetorical methods they use。 Offers several good suggestions on how to turn their own rhetoric back on them。My biggest complaint with this book is that we spent too much time on personal stories from the author--like why did we need to read all about his trip to the Maldives？ It showed us about an area being effected by climate change， but it didn't contribute whatsoever to the conc Reviewed for Foreword Books Indies Awards。A good read about the common methodology used by science deniers and the rhetorical methods they use。 Offers several good suggestions on how to turn their own rhetoric back on them。My biggest complaint with this book is that we spent too much time on personal stories from the author--like why did we need to read all about his trip to the Maldives？ It showed us about an area being effected by climate change， but it didn't contribute whatsoever to the concept of confronting climate and science deniers。 。。。more
The other Sandy
，
The first part was really interesting， but then the author spends the rest of the book making the same points over and over。
Caleb Lagerwey
，
This is a fantastic book that blends together social science research on changing minds with the author's experiences。 While grounded in research and including plenty of facts， the purpose of the book is stated plainly in its title: it's not a list of facts to rebut science deniers， but rather a book about strategies for engaging with and talking to them。 McIntyre supplements his excellent summaries of empirical research with personal stories that clarify his points well。 The final chapter on CO This is a fantastic book that blends together social science research on changing minds with the author's experiences。 While grounded in research and including plenty of facts， the purpose of the book is stated plainly in its title: it's not a list of facts to rebut science deniers， but rather a book about strategies for engaging with and talking to them。 McIntyre supplements his excellent summaries of empirical research with personal stories that clarify his points well。 The final chapter on COVID was timely， of course， and his defense of the importance of science is much-needed。 I especially liked the 5 common fallacies that science-denying uses: “（1） Cherry-picking evidence （2） Belief in conspiracy theories （3） Reliance on fake experts （and the denigration of real experts） （4） Committing logical errors （5） Setting impossible expectations for what science can achieve。" McIntyre concludes that the best way to engage with science deniers is to approach them one-on-one， face-to-face with respect and relationship。 Since the issue is rarely about a lack of facts， the goal is less content rebuttal and more about getting people to expand their circle of concern， to apply better/change their values， and to change their identity。 Because of polarization and identity-stacking tribalism， these debates are often about people's identity， but expanding circles of concern and tweaking values can really help。 I recommend this book to anyone interested in combatting misinformation， in supporting science， in logical reasoning， or in having conversations across ideological divides。 It'll be particularly helpful for teachers in science or social studies。 It's engaging， accessible， and eminently charitable （McIntyre doesn't spend much time at all on evolution， for example， and so religious readers need not be turned off）。 。。。more
Tom
，
This book is a very useful guide to dealing with science deniers。I became involved in dealing with pseudoscience claims in astronomy and physics back in the 1990s， and was often told by other scientists that I was wasting my time。 I 'retreated' from that hobby back in 2015 as various studies were suggesting the hopelessness of my efforts and my 'to do' list had become rather overwhelming。This book explores some of those earlier studies and integrates the more recent work suggesting things are no This book is a very useful guide to dealing with science deniers。I became involved in dealing with pseudoscience claims in astronomy and physics back in the 1990s， and was often told by other scientists that I was wasting my time。 I 'retreated' from that hobby back in 2015 as various studies were suggesting the hopelessness of my efforts and my 'to do' list had become rather overwhelming。This book explores some of those earlier studies and integrates the more recent work suggesting things are not as hopeless as they appeared。 It is nice to learn that I was at least doing a few things right！ But there are areas where I can improve， and at least have ideas to explore thanks to this book。Thanks Lee McIntyre！ 。。。more
Priscilla
，
Read up until the last chapter and then it was just too dry， I couldn't keep going。 Interesting information but dry and slow reading。 Read up until the last chapter and then it was just too dry， I couldn't keep going。 Interesting information but dry and slow reading。 。。。more
J
，
The premise of this book seemed vital， but the author lost a lot of credibility by repeatedly citing James Lindsay， Peter Boghossian， and Michael Shermer as legitimate experts。 These three men's work in the field of scientific scepticism has been completely overshadowed by their ideologically driven work to try to discredit any social sciences which they don't like， regardless of the fact that they have admitted they have no actual knowledge or training in the fields。 All of them have crossed se The premise of this book seemed vital， but the author lost a lot of credibility by repeatedly citing James Lindsay， Peter Boghossian， and Michael Shermer as legitimate experts。 These three men's work in the field of scientific scepticism has been completely overshadowed by their ideologically driven work to try to discredit any social sciences which they don't like， regardless of the fact that they have admitted they have no actual knowledge or training in the fields。 All of them have crossed serious ethical lines in pursuit of pushing their own misogynist， homophobic， transphobic， and racist political beliefs far beyond any scientific skepticism they once claimed to support。 The extremeness of James Lindsay's rhetoric against the mere existence of LGBT people as well as Jews puts him squarely in the camp of fascism。 His decent into fascism occurred long before this book was written， and citing him （so many time！） as a source of rationality is stunningly revealing of McIntyre's motivations behind this book。 I wonder， if he was going to write another chapter， would he be railing against transgender kids playing sports or getting life-saving medical care and citing Joe Rogan as an eminent scholar in the field？ 。。。more
Gendou
，
This is an entertaining but kind of unimportant book。 I thought it would contain some new insight into the minds of science deniers。 Like， a novel or at least well-researched theory of how and why people fall prey to conspiracy theories， etc。 Instead， it contains some basic common knowledge like the formula for determining if something is science denial。 It tells some funny stories about the author's personal experiences talking with these loony toons。 But it's devoid of true investigative journ This is an entertaining but kind of unimportant book。 I thought it would contain some new insight into the minds of science deniers。 Like， a novel or at least well-researched theory of how and why people fall prey to conspiracy theories， etc。 Instead， it contains some basic common knowledge like the formula for determining if something is science denial。 It tells some funny stories about the author's personal experiences talking with these loony toons。 But it's devoid of true investigative journalism or a rigorous scientific approach。 Just a personal journey。The author has his head on straight。 but that's the best thing I can say about the book。I liked it， but if you're looking for something substantive， keep scrolling。 。。。more
Anca Popescu
，
I believe it's a really good book， and I would recommend it to everyone。 It is so important to understand that we have to search for dialogue and convive with ALL the people around us， independently from their views。 Because in the end we're all on the same side， we all want to live a happy life， to eat healthy and not to distroy this planet 🌏。。。 Just that sometimes it's difficult to see the common ground。。。 Definitely worth the time。 I came about this book because I was looking for ways of talk I believe it's a really good book， and I would recommend it to everyone。 It is so important to understand that we have to search for dialogue and convive with ALL the people around us， independently from their views。 Because in the end we're all on the same side， we all want to live a happy life， to eat healthy and not to distroy this planet 🌏。。。 Just that sometimes it's difficult to see the common ground。。。 Definitely worth the time。 I came about this book because I was looking for ways of talking with people in my family who belive in conspiracy theories。 The book confirmed me that respect for the other， the capacity of listening for understanding are a few of the things we can do。 More facts and scientific evidence will not help， and we will convert nobody。 And the most important thing is to plant a seed of doubt in the fight for supporting the importance of science。Another important topic was the "fake news" invention and how we're living in a world where everyone who has something to sell pays its own "researchers /scientist" to conduct "scientific research" for the desired results。 Quite interesting。。。 。。。more
Gavin Esdale
，
Credit where it is due to Lee McIntyre for taking the admirable step of daring to attend a Flat Earth convention and attempt to seriously engage with at least one proponent of that group in a fair-minded and nonjudgmental manner。 That willingness to engage is one factor in why I think quite highly of this book， and why I'm willing to give it 5 stars。 True to its title， the book presents the theory and practice of engaging with those who hold onto beliefs that are not scientifically sound。 The ac Credit where it is due to Lee McIntyre for taking the admirable step of daring to attend a Flat Earth convention and attempt to seriously engage with at least one proponent of that group in a fair-minded and nonjudgmental manner。 That willingness to engage is one factor in why I think quite highly of this book， and why I'm willing to give it 5 stars。 True to its title， the book presents the theory and practice of engaging with those who hold onto beliefs that are not scientifically sound。 The actual guidelines for how to talk with science deniers are actually quite succinct and straightforward （listen， don't mock/belittle， understand where they're coming from） as are the techniques for questioning/confronting them on their beliefs。 If the book was only about the exact specifics of how to conduct this kind of engagement， it probably would have been a bit meagre， so much of the rest of the book concerns itself with exploring and presenting an array of evidence and interesting facts about the psychology and sociological aspects of the many faces of science denial， from the tobacco industry to climate change to the many types of denialism associated with the covid-19 pandemic。 Another point in McIntyre's favour is that he tackles science denial both on the political right and left （and he scores an additional point for illustrating that even though science denial exists on both sides of the political spectrum， it is far more extreme in character and intensity on the right， hey， facts are important！） I think the thing that most stuck out to me was his recounting of his conversations with two friends who hold some misguided beliefs about GMOs。 It was quite riveting to read， especially given that they conveyed the very real discomfort and tension that comes with having these kinds of talks， even I myself felt a bit called out on some of my own feelings about GMOs。 I may have some minor issues with some of the moral logic that was on display， but that's an extremely minor complaint， and it says something positive about McIntyre's largely no-BS allowed approach to his efforts at engagement。 Ultimately， what complaints I have don't warrant removing a star。 This book is direct， handy， and it gets its key points across memorably and effectively。 Recommended for anyone who wants some useful advice for engaging science deniers with the intent of listening or even working to change minds， or for anyone who dreads family reunions because of *that* one aunt or uncle。 。。。more
Jaq
，
A timely and important book to read。 Communicating with folks on the other side of the divide is so important in bringing us together。
Corvus
，
Painfully neoliberal at times， but there are good bits as well。 The good: He discusses how science works and how that's very different from how much of the public is taught to view science （i。e。 that it's either 100% proof or wrong rather than a process of testing， theorizing， discovering， and revising when necessary。He stresses the importance of respecting one another， listening， and talking to each other。 The sort of thing I need to remember is， "Do I actually want to persuade this person to w Painfully neoliberal at times， but there are good bits as well。 The good: He discusses how science works and how that's very different from how much of the public is taught to view science （i。e。 that it's either 100% proof or wrong rather than a process of testing， theorizing， discovering， and revising when necessary。He stresses the importance of respecting one another， listening， and talking to each other。 The sort of thing I need to remember is， "Do I actually want to persuade this person to wear a mask/get vaxxed/etc or do I just want to win？" I don't even like competition， but in stressful situations like a global pandemic， I do sometimes struggle。He talks to miners about coal and climate change which is really important。 Coal miners are often stuck between environmentalists from the city and putting food on their tables。He visits a flat earther conference in the beginning and that part was just entertaining。The bad: He needs to take his own advice。 He's very passionate about climate change。 Well， he's passionate about the parts he wants to focus on。 If someone else （re the gmo discussions） tries to bring up environmental concerns and that conflict with his argument （gmos are always good and safe full stop because they are safe to eat and can help with nutrient deficiency，） he just tosses it aside。 If someone brings up monsanto， he brushes it off as science denial despite farmers killing themselves due to monsantos lawsuits or contamination。 He comes off as smug and closed off despite the book being about talking to each other more。 No， being concerned about the environmental effects of genetically altering plants and animals is not the same as being anti-vax or vaccine hesitant。 Even though he luckily talks to others who disagree， he still always frames it as him bringing them knowledge and not vice versa。He is very neoliberal and seems to have no analysis of capitalism whatsoever。 Kids starving worldwide could all be fed right now。 We have the resources， we'd just rather throw them away， hoard them， or steal them than actually feed everyone。 We could also feed everyone multiple times over with the food and land we use to exploit trillions of nonhuman animals per year for their flesh and secretions。 （He also glosses over animal agriculture being one of the top climate change causes。）Blah blah I could critique him for hours but at least he's willing to have a conversation。 At least he believes in humanity and peoples potential。 And I certainly didn't know all of the things I am preaching about in this interview 20 years ago。 Someone had to talk to me， too。 。。。more
Yousuf Alrawi
，
Interesting stories and hypotheses and arguments around some of the topics that are affecting the world。 I was expecting more actual technical contents on the topics。
Mark
，
Probably one everyone should read， especially those of us struggling with how easily truth can be denied。 Great insight and really helped my understanding of the whole process。
João
，
This books fails to deliver what it says in the cover （pandemic played a huge role）， but still， the ideas and the way Lee can keep the reader engaged is really appreciated。 4* because it lacked more conversations and more practical techniques on how to reach these people that appear to be detached from reality。 It is our duty to put "them on the team that celebrates science"。 This books fails to deliver what it says in the cover （pandemic played a huge role）， but still， the ideas and the way Lee can keep the reader engaged is really appreciated。 4* because it lacked more conversations and more practical techniques on how to reach these people that appear to be detached from reality。 It is our duty to put "them on the team that celebrates science"。 。。。more
Hazel
，
2。5 starsgood read！ very timely。 My antivax friend who sent me science videos from worldstarhiphop。com still hasn't spoken to me in months ever since I suggested she give me more credible sources。 Lee makes a great point that we will never reach these people without engaging in dialogue。 However， you can't reason someone out of an opinion that they never reasoned themselves into in the first place。 Still leaves me feeling like a lot of these people are lost causes。。。 excuse my pessimism。。 2。5 starsgood read！ very timely。 My antivax friend who sent me science videos from worldstarhiphop。com still hasn't spoken to me in months ever since I suggested she give me more credible sources。 Lee makes a great point that we will never reach these people without engaging in dialogue。 However， you can't reason someone out of an opinion that they never reasoned themselves into in the first place。 Still leaves me feeling like a lot of these people are lost causes。。。 excuse my pessimism。。 。。。more
Andrew Dart
，
I enjoyed the book and found the FLICC model very interesting and helpful in focusing my own thoughts on the matter。 I did struggle a little with the latter part of the book where Lee attempted to test his method for talking to science deniers and seemed to constantly fail to first find any， and then to talk them round。 That is not to say his approach would not work， I think it likely that it would， just that by his own admission it would require many conversation over a long period of time in o I enjoyed the book and found the FLICC model very interesting and helpful in focusing my own thoughts on the matter。 I did struggle a little with the latter part of the book where Lee attempted to test his method for talking to science deniers and seemed to constantly fail to first find any， and then to talk them round。 That is not to say his approach would not work， I think it likely that it would， just that by his own admission it would require many conversation over a long period of time in order to build trust， and that just didn't take place in this book。 。。。more
Anna
，
yawnEvery bit as idiotic as anticipated。 Bad propaganda for the virtue signaling to pat themselves on the back about， no me
Jessica
，
This book was okay。 I enjoyed learning what science deniers believe。 I don't feel any better equiped for talking to science deniers。 The chapters were choppy。 This book was okay。 I enjoyed learning what science deniers believe。 I don't feel any better equiped for talking to science deniers。 The chapters were choppy。 。。。more
Daniel Dimitrov
，
The first two chapters are pure gold。 It gets quite repetitive after that
Nicole
，