(Reponse to prompt 1)
Talking to pseudoscience believers can be infuriating for those of us who have the privilege of having access to a scientific education and the common sense to use it. How can these people not see that the claims they parrot from their favorite news source are absolute bologna? How can they ignore the evidence that it sitting literally right in front of them? How can they be deaf to generations of scientists that have been saying things that directly contradict what they believe?
Getting angry is easy. So is starting the conversation from atop a high horse. I think that engaging with believers requires more thought and patience than we might originally think. No one likes being told that they’re wrong, and they like it even less when the argument coming at them is framed aggressively.
So let’s treat a conversation with someone who believes a pseudoscientific claim like we would treat one with a member of the opposing political party. Rather than using statements like “that’s wrong”, “that’s stupid”, or “I can’t believe that you believe this” (because such statements imply that the other person is stupid or otherwise lacking), what if we began the conversation with questions?
“Why do you think this is true?” is a much more open ended and less argumentative way of leading someone into a conversation. Rather than trying to change their beliefs in a shouting match, make them feel like you’re actually considering their point of view. Allow them to reach the correct conclusion on their own instead of spoon-feeding it to them.
If everyone– both sides of the conversation– takes a step back before rushing in headlong it makes it much easier to come to an understanding. Is it easy? No. Will it bring about better results? I hope so.
This post is interesting as it does not directly investigate the possible issues that may arise from allowing pseudoscientific claims to be accepted as authentic scientific research. The theme of emotional response is an interesting perspective. Viewing the issue from the point of view of someone who understands the scientific process and is willing to work with the individuals who choose to support these wild claims shifts the focus from the harm caused by believing pseudoscience towards education. The author proposes that people in improving their critical thought is an important step in decreasing popular support for such “theories”. The usage of thought-provoking questions while avoiding aggressive or insulting phrases that demean the opposition is crucial in this endeavor. Too often the exchange of opposing ideas leads to conflict, with one side inevitable shouting down the other or attacking the individual on a personal level rather than deconstructing their argument. This conflict can be avoided by proposing questions that the opposition can answer. In doing so they are forced to trace back their logic, step by step, to support their reasoning in believing these outlandish claims. This review and reevaluation assist in separating the strong factual elements from the weaker, tenuous connections that pseudoscience tends to rely on. Hopefully, with this little bit of extra assistance the overall level of acceptance for pseudoscience and its proposed claims will eventually decrease within the public spectrum and rational, critical thought will be used more frequently to evaluate any similar claims in the future.
Hello, upon reading this blog post it made me realize that addressing pseudo archeology might be more difficult than I originally thought. I know professor Watrall said in class that when having conversations with pseudo archeologists they would make claims that are inaccurate, but I feel like I would tell them that they sounded stupid or that they were very wrong. This is for sure not the way we need to go about addressing these claims .I agree asking questions like “why do you think that is true” is a great way to talk to these people because you can use this to your advantage. You can pull up facts, and disprove their “theories” by using real science and real definitions. I am not sure that we will be able to truly rid the world of pseudo archeology though. I think that a lot of people are deeply rooted in these crazy ideas and things they see as facts. People see the passion that these pseudo archeologists have and want to follow that. This leads to even more people believing in false things. In conclusion, I think that the news, and archeologists, need to start trying to expose pseudo archeology in the media. Personally, I had never heard of it before this class. I never took Ancient Aliens as fact, but I always thought the show was interesting. Now that I am educated on these claims and their influence, I see through them. I think all it takes is a step towards educating the public to start to rid the archeological community of these crazy people.
Although I understand the position you take, based on the readings, I think that you are tackling a problem that, at least from an academic perspective, doesn’t really exist. You take a similar stance as Michael Michlovic did in his essay “Folk Archaeology in Archaeological Perspective” – that pseudoarchaeologists are simply ignorant, and need to be educated. While this may be true for “believers,” the general public that buys into pseudoarchaeological ideas, it ignores the larger issue that Cole et al. brings up in their response to Michlovic – that the issue archaeologists see with pseudoarchaeology is less the people who are fooled by it and more the (often insidious) creators and perpetrators of pseudoarchaeological myths. People who believe in pseudoarchaeological ideas may be harmless and misinformed, but often times these ideals are just the entry to a whole host of dangerous ideologies. It is all well and good to be sensitive and respectful in discourse about, say, a tax bill, to use your political metaphor, but respect doesn’t work if the people you are arguing with don’t have the same respect for you. Like Dr. Watrall mentioned, pseudoarchaeology is at the core of the beliefs of many neo-Nazi and ethnic supremacy movements. You can play fair with fascists, but don’t expect them to do the same. Furthermore, as Cole et al. points out, the problem you and Michlovic are trying to fix (incivility towards pseudoscientists), doesn’t really exists in an academic context. “Much of [literature debunking pseudoarchaeological ideas] is written for the general public with the aim of refuting cult claims by providing both information and principles of critical thought so that readers can see [pseuoarchaeological] shortcomings themselves,” Cole et al writes, “sometimes their language is strong, but again the denouncements are usually directed toward the producers of such pseudoscience rather than its consumers.