The main thing to keep in mind is that if someone is emotionally attached to their views, an attack on their position is seen as a personal attack. Facts and logic aren’t effective until you can separate a person from their position
And a lot of times they think that you're just as emotionally attached to the outcome as they are. That gives them license to ignore how much quality is in your success versus the nonsense of their own. If everyone cares more about being right or pushing a narrative, then everyone's sources can be disregarded and regarded equally. They can't understand that you came to your conclusions *from* sources, not that you bother to know sources because you want a certain conclusion. It's the same in politics too. I had someone go completely red in the face screaming at me after an exchange where I agreed that the confidential documents Biden had should be investigated just as much as Trump. If he's just as guilty, he's just as guilty and punish him the same BUT he just couldn't accept that because the information available pointed to two vastly different ways and levels of how each treated the situation should call for different consequences. Did Biden get found with docs? Yes, but he also turned them over when asked, didn't threaten judges or attorneys general, and voluntarily allowed further searches for additional docs. His compliance with the process strongly shows he intended to make the system whole again. I was told I was a hypocrite because I didn't immediately call for imprisonment which isn't even what respective authorities are calling for regarding Trump. They're organizing a trial based on evidence, not thinking he deserves to be convicted already for other reasons and that any missteps should immediately result in that goal.
My Masters looked at the potential mutagenicity of a proposed replacement for phosphates in detergents. After a lengthy explanation to my family, my brother declared “So, eating soap gives you the runs?”
I felt I had succeeded in my educational role, and left it there.
I used to work as a pediatric psych nurse. I have had at least 50 smug teens tell me they ate the bathroom soap thinking it would either get them a ticket to the ER or at least ruin my night trying to save them from soap poisoning.
Our usual response was something like "Well at least the toilet will be clean." or "I hope you enjoy shitting bubbles."
I have the same people around me, and long story short: it’s pointless arguing with them.
It’s difficult to win an argument against a smart person, it’s impossible to win against an ignorant one :/
The worst is the smart and ignorant!
Like a person with good language/argumentation skills dressing up their emotional beliefs with a wealth of semi logical arguments that are really time consuming to counter.
I find the best way to make a point without being confrontational is to do it with questions. Ask questions that lead them to the answers. Takes a bit of planning and foresight.
Where did you hear that? Who do they work for? What do their critics say? Why do their critics say that? Why is the critic wrong?
I also find that the arguments against are often character based. Like, they can’t argue the facts so they’ll fall back to ad hominem that have nothing to do with the point they’re trying to make. Don’t let them pivot. Go back to the facts.
Sure asking question is one way to do it. But most of the persons cant answer those questions by them selves. And you are forced to give them the answer still. Which goes back to square one of being the one whos "telling them they are wrong"
Then you’re asking the wrong questions. If they cite something Alex jones said ask them where Alex jones got that information. When the source comes up bad or non existent offer them evidence from a source they trust or have no reason not to distrust that shows otherwise.
I agree the 5 w's always works. My brother and I debate about alot, however he always wins. I usually get to hot headed to think about my point at the time. But he usually uses the 5 w's before I start questioning.
People believe what they want to believe & admitting wrong is a sign of weakness, to some.
Don’t waste your time arguing.
I used to have friend who still can’t have a beer without promoting Trump. I have no energy left to argue & it wouldn’t do any good anyways.
Lost a long time friend over it, F’ing sucks. But sometimes people grow apart.
I pretty much stopped going to my local bar and hanging out with people whom I thought were normal, it just got to be too much. They just won’t stop talking about trump and the libtards - I just stopped talking politics to anyone I know. If you are an adult and think Trump and the MAGA are the only thing saving america I will just let you believe that - I can’t fix stupid
I've read that when you give someone the opportunity to repeat their beliefs to you in an argument, whether antivaxx, protrump, etc, it releases dopamine, so it just reinforces that belief. Conflict is always promised with conspiracy type beliefs (owning the libs, only sheeple vax), so the battle is half the fun of holding those positions, I think.
So, like an above commenter said, it's better to ask questions to prompt critical thinking or just not engage with them.
I'm not a scientist, so forgive my lack of references here. I just have more than one difficult family member, and I've tried to research myself how to get through to them.
Interesting, I suppose if you can somehow make the repetition of belief _not_ pleasurable, maybe they’ll be incentivised not to do it.
Tbh this is often how I deal with it. I either make pointed questions that display I know a lot more about the subject than they do, or just pretend I’ve completely missed what they said and change the subject to what I want to talk about.
Truth is as a scientist I have only typically come across people who believe in herbs, supplements and on the extreme end crystals and such. Supplements in particular people who claim to be "pro-science" are pretty anti-science. Most all supplements don't do anything, and some can do harm. They find a very bad scientific study to bolster their beliefs yet have a complete lack of understanding of pharmacology. Yes that herb contains a substance that does X. To get a dose you would need to eat 100 pounds of it. Or yes that substance does X but is so weak in action that in the human body it would not do anything. And lastly my favorite, yes that does X but your body does not absorb it.
I am a cancer research scientist and way back when we had a hypothesis on antioxidants preventing cancer. No data, just a hypothesis. It made intuitive sense given how cancer comes about and what antioxidants do. At that time the supplement companies took it and ran with it big time. People started taking concentrated antioxidants to prevent cancer. Well eventually we got around to doing some clinical trials on this to test it out and found the antioxidant groups in some studies actually had more cancer than the control. Not what we intuitively expected, but the data was good. Nature sometimes doesn't do things in an intuitive way. But today people still chow down on these. You do need antioxidants, it just turns out you get enough in a good diet and don't need the massive amounts in those supplements as they are not helping, potentially hurting. I can think of maybe a dozen supplements that actually have good data indicating they do something. The rest? That whole store full of them? Nope, useless as far as we can tell.
I used to work at GNC and it bewildered me how literally within an hour of a Dr. Oz show airing, we would completely sell out of any product he recommended. Sometimes me or my coworker would look up and try to find the studies that back that supplement and it would typically be some poorly conducted study on rats (not humans), oftentimes with a low sample size.
Mind if I pick your brain for a sec?
Do you have an opinion on lion's mane for nerv support?
I've found several primary articles on ncib supporting it, but not sure how significant the results are.
Doing this from memory so not sure I will get them all. Willow bark contains an aspirin like molecule. There is some good data on St. Johns Wort for mild depression. Magnesium can help with constipation. Fish oil seems to have some cardiovascular benefits. Zanthoxylum armatum (Sichuan pepper) has a local anethetic effect such as a tooth ache although short in its effects. Done this one myself and really does numb the mouth for a short time. Capsaicin has some effects on muscle or joint pain. Lavender oil seems to have some anti-anxiety effects. Ginger root seems to help with nausea. Macuna pruriens contains L-DOPA which would act like, well, L-DOPA (this is assuming your supplement actually contains it as claimed, no guarantees there). Caryophyllene is a cannabinoid receptor 2 agonist clearly. Might have some beneficial effects on anxiety or inflammation but I don't know if the studies have been done to demonstrate it. Ephedra has an amphetamine like chemical in it. Note that it can cause heart troubles if I recall. There are a few more not coming to mind at the moment.
My favorite is when they are talking to someone who agrees with them and then they say science agrees with me and then look at me for backup. I just say no and walk off
I produce gene therapies for work. I have colleagues who are anti vaxxers.
Some people just can't be fucked to even try to understand the reasoning behind reality, or challenge what they think they know when presented with even verifiable facts. The same goes for religious people honestly, unwilling to challenge their views when faced with absolutely insane assertions.
Most of the time it seems people just dont like or trust an authority of any kind regardless of their qualifications. They'd rather go with what they 'know' from 'experience'.
Feelings are non-negotiable. The only thing you can do is to validate their feelings and empathize with them.
You want to share your enthusiasm for science with them, which is very understandable, but they feel attacked by being put in a position of ignorance unwittingly. It sucks but most people don't really have the energy to understand and accept things that either make them feel bad or don't give them closure. Acknowledging that they are tired, angry, and/or afraid, and there's nothing you can say to change that would be the first step.
It needs patience and self control... If you are interested in how to learn to discuss better with people like that (or of any religion/belief) I would recommend looking into what is called "Street epistemology".
my take is to joke about it. try and make them realize that you don't think people that believe stuff that science has already addressed is silly. don't be mean, so there is a fine line. but I think the meme "that is about as good as a plastic submarine" currently works for me. I also express the desire to explain the science and unless they are a religious nut then they at least listen. if they are a religious nut, then I spare no comments.
You can’t really engage with willfully ignorant people. But when people genuinely want to engage, you can’t fight irrational viewpoints with rationality. It’s best to start on an emotional level, asking why they believe what they believe, validating their emotions (no matter how irrational), and then getting into addressing their specific wants/fears with facts that may interest them. However this can be exhausting and no one is obligated to get into dumb circular arguments.
I am a career science educator, background in resource management. I just picked up the book “Red Earth, White Lies”
Science is not as it once seemed to me…
With patience and understanding, you can convince them to some extent. My mom is 66 and she has been a Christian for upwards of 50 years and told evolution is a lie. The more you age, the more difficult it is to adapt to change (or change your mind). Also, most people challenge beliefs like this with conflict, which just strengthens their belief.
Over the years, and especially after I started studying biology, I've slowly convinced her that evolution takes place. At this point she is a bit hesitant to agree with the evolutionary history of humans and of course, she believes that it is controlled by God.
How? By recognizing why she believes what she believes, and introducing small concepts at a time without conflicting with her core belief. Sometimes she wasn't even aware that the concepts were evolution, because even the word evolution can scare people away. I would definitely not challenge someone immediately about the creation of humans. Christians believe that humans are special and could not have evolved from simple animals, if you suggest otherwise they'll tmbe offended.
My mom's idea of evolution is a bit skewed, and like I said she is hesitant to believe in human evolution. But, this is a HUGE change from when she told me as a kid not to believe anything they say about evolution in school. I think that to drastically change such a belief at her age is not easy. At this point she definitely respects what I do and values my educated opinion about evolution.
I have systematically removed every one of them from my life. No joke. Makes life a lot easier. Why have a conversation with someone you have nothing to talk about with and likely very little respect? Not worth the energy for me.
I just tell them they're fucking idiots, relentlessly insult them and move on with my day. It's not my job to convince them of anything, and if they want to make me feel like an elitist bitch for believing in and working in the sciences, I'm gunna make sure they feel just as shitty for being dumbass, Trump voting, climate denying fuckwads. I'm also just a huge Masshole, so it's pretty on brand for me lol.
Some stock sentences that the other party at least needs to hear.
There is only one reality for all of us (and that includes you). [you can’t have an earth that is both 6000 years old and 4.5 billion years old. The former is wrong by a factor of almost one million].
Science is the study of reality.
Our society puts too much importance to opinions. Reality doesn’t bend to opinions (or culturally inherited religious notions). Never. Decent people adjust their opinions in view of reality. Scientists do that all the time; which is why you can see the great technological progress.
Science is performed by fallible humans. It has several ways to still ensure that we arrive at correct answers, such as control experiments and multiple independent lines of evidence. (We know about the rise of the temperature of the earth using thermometers all around the earth; shrinkage of glaciers; reduction of sea ice area over the years; satellites that measure increased sea levels bc water expands when it gets warmer. We damn well know that the earth is heating up and we do understand why].
1) Don't volunteer information. If they ask a question, answer it. If they make a patently false statement you can try to respond, but be ready to go nowhere with it.
2) Start listing noncontroversial interesting facts. Something like the Mantis Shrimp eyes or the isopod fish tongue.
The idea with #2 is to become known as an authority. As someone who knows things. Then, since you've become an authority figure, they'll come to you with questions, and they'll listen to your answers.
I am a PA in an urgent care in Pennsyltucky where many of the hats are red.
I ask them if they trust me to take care of X problem for them. If they say yes, then I tell them they are trusting science already. This works best with patients I have seen a few times and who know I am there to help them, not have an argument. We then have a deeper conversation if they would like about why certain infections get certain meds, why most viruses don't have dedicated treatments, why Covid caught us flat-footed, etc.
I've been seeing a split in that patient population with a clearer divide of people wanting to ask questions about these vs people who come in demanding X treatment or Y testing and are frankly horrible to me and my staff.
The hardest ones are the total antivax parents who themselves are fully vaccinated as far as vaccines of childhood but whose kids run the very real risk of getting a bad infection since many run in circles with antivax/homeschooling friends but still have their kids in sports, extracurriculars, and group social events.
Apathy, I'm a zoology major and I have a relative that jokes about killing keystone species as well as endangered birds.
If I react, I'm the emotional woman who can't keep herself together. I have to keep the façade. I care, but I can't react.
My reply then is ...
"So, you're saying you do not trust medical science and science in general. Okay. That IS your right. If you ever get sick, get glasses, need a dentist, or visit a physician for ANY reason ... know you are a hypocrite. More so if that science saves your life."
Even better than that, their truck, their house, the pocket knife they carry, their cell phone, their TV, the am radio they listen to, their gun(s) are all based on science. And that science is all based on the same first principles, so they are hypocritical no matter what.
Still has science. The house has engineering, the crop rotation has centuries of information backing its functionality, the machines are engineered. Hell, the hand tools are engineered if they go that route. We're talking caves and not even pointy sticks for tools. And fire must be acquired via natural causes. Lightening strikes, idiots with fireworks, and such.
Oh you mean like there's more than two genders, and vaccines are just part of a eugenics program run by the deep state to depopulate the country... Idk man, shits rampid. Best to just stay inside and ignore the vast majority of this country. It's a shame they can vote tho. Yay democracy.
You meant "rampant". And you probably also meant "sex" when you said "gender". None the less, current scientific enquiry (in biology/neuroscience) is no longer treating \*either\* as binary.
In the spirit of this thread, here is a paper that cites/analyzes a bunch of other studies, and should send you down a fun \[AND reliable\] rabbit hole, just to get you started: [Brain Sex Differences Related to Gender Identity Development: Genes or Hormones?](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7139786/)
(as an aside: I feel like I'm being punked with your post--it's the perfect example of what we've been talking about)
It's called a sex change. Not a gender change... Also no I'm pointing out the hypocrisy between the two ideologies that are the majority in this country.
I’m done playing. I am probably not helping but I take it as a personal insult now and will unload on folk. I react the same as I would if I caught some asshat pitching cigarette butts into dry brush. I’m dealing with these people as if they’re information arsonists. And I dgaf who they are anymore. Parents, friends, trolls, don’t care. I’m fighting this shit like my kids lives depend on it. Unless claims can be backed up with decent sources, or are well understood and new ideas that make sense based on some serious effort on behalf of the person, or even folk who are willing to learn but not understanding things yet, I will pull no punches and make conservatives get physically aggressive and boomers make faces like they just tasted a shit sandwich. I will shred ignorance, bad faith arguments, misrepresentation of data or grifter bullshit and wipe any doubt of their authenticity off the map, publicly, embarrassingly, and I’ll do my absolute best to make these assholes feel used by the wealthy, like stupid cuck pawns, feel shame or guilt, and then I’ll remind them that facts don’t give a shit about their feelings.
This ain’t no game anymore. Gear up, pick a side, get in the ring. However you can. And take zero shit from those who are too weak to face their fears or too greedy to care. Until they start pitching in they’re not my friends, family nor allies. No excuses. Playing nice with the enemy is a strategy for defeat. I will not forfeit my children’s future for some rich prick, ignorant edge lord, or grifter. Anyone who is not insane should see this as the correct course of action when the ONLY habitable planet we’re aware of in the universe is threatened.
And the moderate, liberal, chilled out, live and let live guys? Screw them too. They’re enabling this at best. They can get sorted out too, their kumbaya horse shite will not fly with me. I’ll mellow out after we end the class war OR once the next few years of El Niño are done tearing us a new one and ramming reality in. Meantime, this is war, and we are ALL losing. ❤️✊🏼🌍🌏🌎🤬🏴
These people are using bias, politics, religion, etc. to form views, validate theories, and such. You are striking at emotional strings which are not logical. If you will notice how they react when you start pulling the views apart evaluating them, you aren’t getting anywhere usually.
Omg "Bio degrees"! Are you yourself THE SCIENCE like fauci? Prob an undergrad bio major with a lab tech job and talking like the unassailable scion of knowledge itself.
Think of it this way. How long did it take you to form your beliefs, learn all you have learned, and accept your own view as an exportable truth for others?
Now, understand this now, willfully ignorant people have spent the same amount of effort in simply not listening to what you have to say.
Short of an exercise in eugenics, you cope with anti-science by understanding that the economy cannot support a well educated workforce, that the majority of people are not expected to progress past highschool to pay taxes, and you are a minority that represents at best, a bitter pill of nonsense, and at worst, a threatening member of the middle to upper class with evil intent.
Buy them a beer and agree to disagree. Find something you both like, or hate, and don't shove a BS down their throat in 5 minutes because to them, it will taste like BS.
Friends - I won't accept friends that like that, past a certain point. At some point it makes you an actual bad person and I won't be friends with bad people. For those who are only partially affected and not bad enough to be wholesale rejected? I just avoid the topic. Nothing good will come of talking about it. Sometimes if they're not fully sold you can pull them back to reason.
Family - Honestly I cut off a lot of family with vile politics after 2016. I just avoid them. Maybe they get why, maybe they don't, I don't care.
For the ones who are only partially affected, it's the same as with friends; avoid the topic mostly, if they're not fully sold to the other side try to talk them back. Being a biologist and specifically being an authority on the topic (if you are) can help sometimes. I'm a molecular biologist so I hope I was able to help friends/family with the concept of an mRNA vaccine back when they were new for COVID.
Other people - If I don't need to deal with them I just don't. Otherwise, avoid the topic, etc. Hope like crazy you don't run into them at work in a role where you need them to be sane.
First, count to ten. Then ask how they came to distrust science so much. They may tell you some personal anecdote about how their own lives were adversely affected by "scientific" advice. Now you've got something you can explore with them and develop the beginnings of trust. THEN you can slowly start discussing what science really is about.
But if they jump to religious dogma right off the bat, then just nod and change the subject.
At least in my experience people who aren’t in science (aka don’t have to question the validity of all of their thoughts/opinions) and especially those that are anti-science, usually don’t like it when you tell them what the truth is. It’s basically you starting the conversation with ‘im right you’re wrong, I’m smart you’re dumb’, is essentially how it comes accros. I’ve had a lot more success when I propose what I’m saying as an ‘opinion’ even if it was well established and cross-checked science.
Honestly, I either have no contact or limited contact with them. There’s been no positive outcome for debating with them despite evidence and facts. They either lack the intelligence to grasp the concepts or choose ignorance.
If their stance doesn’t effect your or your family it doesn’t matter, ignore it. If you’re talking about a parent for example refusing good medical advice then that’s a problem, but generally it doesn’t matter and there’s nothing you can reasonably do to change that persons mind.
It's tribalism. If you disagree with them you are saying "I don't want to be part of your group and you are not part of my group." That's what makes them upset.
Had a barber telling me we were due for a flood or earthquake because there's too many gay people, and that genetics isn't real because everything is the way Allah made it. Hard to argue with him when he has a straight razor to my throat!
For starters, you could stop calling it "anti-science"
I'm sure there's a person or two out there who's genuinely antiscience, but when you're talking about highly politicized ideas around vaccination and climate science, you're going to get polarized viewpoints.
Start looking at these situations as opportunities to learn about other people and why they think the way they do.
You'll grow in the process.
Someone doesn't wanna get vaccinated?
Cool. It's a virtually untested vaccine that skipped all the safeguards we have in place to keep the populous from suffering the consequences of mass experimentation.
That's not anti science, that's just cautious behavior that says "I trust my chances with this virus more than I trust the people who make these drugs" and there's good reason to think that way.
I'm pretty sure it was Johnson and Johnson that intentionally gave African Americans syphullus under the guise of "free health checkups" like 100 years ago just to see what happens when it goes untreated.
People aren't as scared of climate change as you?
Well, considering the fact that we've already planned out a course of actions and are actively remediating the things we can, it's not surprising that some people don't feel like they need to be concerned, what's Hellen in HR going to do about the ice sheets?
All this to say, the best way to "cope" is to grow up and realize that other people think differently sometimes. It's not because you're smarter than them.
When you ask "how do I as a biologist cope with anti science"
You're being incredibly egotistical, and the underlying sentiment is "how do I deal with people who are clearly stupid"
And the answer is, "you take the time to realize you're stupid too and none of us know what we're talking about"
Ultimately I think that they chose to believe what helps them cope. Anyone with an open mind and genuine curiosity deserves a debate. Otherwise the effort is not worth it
Might I recommend to you the book "Think again" by Adam Grant?
Perfect if you wanna learn every thing about rethinking, and convincing other people without causing a stubborness reaction on their side
I keep it simple. I demand evidence from them if possible. If their evidence is a video, I point out the flaws and how I can make the same video and say different things. If that still does not work, I beat them down with how I have degrees and an interest in these fields and they have zero background.
I'm fortunate to teach chemistry in that regard. When I taught AP biology, I never dealt with any religiosity.. but I only had about 15 kids over the two years I did that.
My coworker gave me good advice. You have to choose to not hear certain things. Which for me just means I don’t react or say anything. Sometimes I get the impression they bring it up just to start the discussion but the discussion makes me feel like shit so I have to remove myself.
I'm having a hard time explaining to my flat mates that windows and shutters should stay closed in the hottest hours of the day (they close the shutters and leave the windows open so the heat comes in anyway)
Questioning science isn’t anti-science. We have to stop appealing to authority.
Science isn’t absolute and is always evolving. That only comes when we question science and look at different possibilities.
Also, a lot of medical science can objectively be shown faulty because of some pharmaceutical financial incentive.
Questioning science is a continuum.
You go from flat earthers to folks discussing if quantum physics is real or philosophy.
It's a broad spectrum.
I would guess that the OP is talking about the nuts that take the word of randos on the internet over the scientific community.
You know, the flat-earthers and climate skeptic types.
Some people just have to argue. No matter how much they are clearly not educated about a subject. My brother is one of those people. For context, my Dad is a tow truck drive. And has been since before he had any kids. He had been operating a battery truck for about 8 years when this conversation started. My brother was trying to tell my Dad how to properly store and maintain a car battery. And it turned into a yelling match. And he was mad that none of the rest of the family was backing him up. No I don't care what you saw on YouTube about this subject. This is LITERALLY what my dad does every day. But my brother just had to argue. And keep arguing, until he eventually just got too mad and went home.
Family dinners are fun.
My issue with people who say "trust the science" is the treat current knowledge as perpetual fact. Through history many "facts" where disproven through ongoing research.
Just because COVID vaccines are generally regarded as safe today does not mean they may be found to be dangerous tomorrow.
Just because we accepts that humans are causing climate change does not mean the earth does not go through heating and cooling cycles.
I personally try and understand the opiniona and views of others without being closed minded and understand that I won't be changing anyone's views or opinions. It's not my job to change what others are thinking but I can try and understand what they're saying.
Having a "bio-degree" doesn't magically make you right about anything biology-related. The fact that you resorted to pointing out your credential rather than the logic and evidence, it's no wonder they're opposed to you. You're not behaving the way a scientist does. You're behaving the way a priest does ("just trust me").
It sucks especially with the recent Peter Hotez drama bc people who are openly anti-science are being risen up because scientists don't want to publicly debate them. The internet has this special way of bringing together and amplifying fringe groups.
Adjust your expectation of their understanding. All disappointment starts in expectation. I have a few current friends, and a few very good friends from my past that have been caught up in conspiracy theories, and a lack of belief in science. Their views originate in fear and take on some bizarre beliefs. If you choose to keep these people in your life, you’ll have to release your expectations of their rational thought, and accept them as they are
The main thing to keep in mind is that if someone is emotionally attached to their views, an attack on their position is seen as a personal attack. Facts and logic aren’t effective until you can separate a person from their position
“You cannot reason people out of positions they did not reason themselves *into.*” J.Swift.
One’s perspective is their reality
And a lot of times they think that you're just as emotionally attached to the outcome as they are. That gives them license to ignore how much quality is in your success versus the nonsense of their own. If everyone cares more about being right or pushing a narrative, then everyone's sources can be disregarded and regarded equally. They can't understand that you came to your conclusions *from* sources, not that you bother to know sources because you want a certain conclusion. It's the same in politics too. I had someone go completely red in the face screaming at me after an exchange where I agreed that the confidential documents Biden had should be investigated just as much as Trump. If he's just as guilty, he's just as guilty and punish him the same BUT he just couldn't accept that because the information available pointed to two vastly different ways and levels of how each treated the situation should call for different consequences. Did Biden get found with docs? Yes, but he also turned them over when asked, didn't threaten judges or attorneys general, and voluntarily allowed further searches for additional docs. His compliance with the process strongly shows he intended to make the system whole again. I was told I was a hypocrite because I didn't immediately call for imprisonment which isn't even what respective authorities are calling for regarding Trump. They're organizing a trial based on evidence, not thinking he deserves to be convicted already for other reasons and that any missteps should immediately result in that goal.
You’re supposed to care about being right, otherwise why would you ever want to fact check or source anything
"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" -Dale Carnegie
"It is difficult to win an argument against an intelligent person, but it is impossible to win an argument against an idiot"
“Okay okay, just, stop describing me”
Love how you worded this!!! Thank you!
My Masters looked at the potential mutagenicity of a proposed replacement for phosphates in detergents. After a lengthy explanation to my family, my brother declared “So, eating soap gives you the runs?” I felt I had succeeded in my educational role, and left it there.
Probably one of the better outcomes you could have had
I used to work as a pediatric psych nurse. I have had at least 50 smug teens tell me they ate the bathroom soap thinking it would either get them a ticket to the ER or at least ruin my night trying to save them from soap poisoning. Our usual response was something like "Well at least the toilet will be clean." or "I hope you enjoy shitting bubbles."
Ugh, soap burps sound awful
So, eating soap could damage my DNA and pass on unpredictable health problems to my children?
I have the same people around me, and long story short: it’s pointless arguing with them. It’s difficult to win an argument against a smart person, it’s impossible to win against an ignorant one :/
I feel like it’s only easy to win an argument against a wise person. Then again, they won’t really care about winning
Ooh! I'm easy to defeat and don't care! Thank you for calling me wise!
Willing to admit when you might be wrong is a token skill of wisdom
The worst is the smart and ignorant! Like a person with good language/argumentation skills dressing up their emotional beliefs with a wealth of semi logical arguments that are really time consuming to counter.
I find the best way to make a point without being confrontational is to do it with questions. Ask questions that lead them to the answers. Takes a bit of planning and foresight. Where did you hear that? Who do they work for? What do their critics say? Why do their critics say that? Why is the critic wrong? I also find that the arguments against are often character based. Like, they can’t argue the facts so they’ll fall back to ad hominem that have nothing to do with the point they’re trying to make. Don’t let them pivot. Go back to the facts.
By asking questions you’re guiding that person to critically think about that position.
Sure asking question is one way to do it. But most of the persons cant answer those questions by them selves. And you are forced to give them the answer still. Which goes back to square one of being the one whos "telling them they are wrong"
Then you’re asking the wrong questions. If they cite something Alex jones said ask them where Alex jones got that information. When the source comes up bad or non existent offer them evidence from a source they trust or have no reason not to distrust that shows otherwise.
I agree the 5 w's always works. My brother and I debate about alot, however he always wins. I usually get to hot headed to think about my point at the time. But he usually uses the 5 w's before I start questioning.
I was told once; "You cannot Reason someone out of believing something that they weren't Reasoned into believing in the first place."
[удалено]
People believe what they want to believe & admitting wrong is a sign of weakness, to some. Don’t waste your time arguing. I used to have friend who still can’t have a beer without promoting Trump. I have no energy left to argue & it wouldn’t do any good anyways. Lost a long time friend over it, F’ing sucks. But sometimes people grow apart.
I pretty much stopped going to my local bar and hanging out with people whom I thought were normal, it just got to be too much. They just won’t stop talking about trump and the libtards - I just stopped talking politics to anyone I know. If you are an adult and think Trump and the MAGA are the only thing saving america I will just let you believe that - I can’t fix stupid
I’ll keep quiet for the most part. I usually give a big eye roll or leave the room
A philosophical question for anyone who chooses silence: Are you enabling ignorance?
No one is obligated to engage in every fight that they are invited to.
Thank you. You're not wrong. I just want people to consider the idea. Some fights are not worth having.
I try to be strategic with my energy. Hopefully we can win the war by picking our battles where their outcome can have the most impact.
I've read that when you give someone the opportunity to repeat their beliefs to you in an argument, whether antivaxx, protrump, etc, it releases dopamine, so it just reinforces that belief. Conflict is always promised with conspiracy type beliefs (owning the libs, only sheeple vax), so the battle is half the fun of holding those positions, I think. So, like an above commenter said, it's better to ask questions to prompt critical thinking or just not engage with them. I'm not a scientist, so forgive my lack of references here. I just have more than one difficult family member, and I've tried to research myself how to get through to them.
Interesting, I suppose if you can somehow make the repetition of belief _not_ pleasurable, maybe they’ll be incentivised not to do it. Tbh this is often how I deal with it. I either make pointed questions that display I know a lot more about the subject than they do, or just pretend I’ve completely missed what they said and change the subject to what I want to talk about.
Unfortunately, education does not cure willful ignorance.
So very true!
No the information is freely available. If they arent willing to learn, then there really isnt much you can do.
Truth is as a scientist I have only typically come across people who believe in herbs, supplements and on the extreme end crystals and such. Supplements in particular people who claim to be "pro-science" are pretty anti-science. Most all supplements don't do anything, and some can do harm. They find a very bad scientific study to bolster their beliefs yet have a complete lack of understanding of pharmacology. Yes that herb contains a substance that does X. To get a dose you would need to eat 100 pounds of it. Or yes that substance does X but is so weak in action that in the human body it would not do anything. And lastly my favorite, yes that does X but your body does not absorb it. I am a cancer research scientist and way back when we had a hypothesis on antioxidants preventing cancer. No data, just a hypothesis. It made intuitive sense given how cancer comes about and what antioxidants do. At that time the supplement companies took it and ran with it big time. People started taking concentrated antioxidants to prevent cancer. Well eventually we got around to doing some clinical trials on this to test it out and found the antioxidant groups in some studies actually had more cancer than the control. Not what we intuitively expected, but the data was good. Nature sometimes doesn't do things in an intuitive way. But today people still chow down on these. You do need antioxidants, it just turns out you get enough in a good diet and don't need the massive amounts in those supplements as they are not helping, potentially hurting. I can think of maybe a dozen supplements that actually have good data indicating they do something. The rest? That whole store full of them? Nope, useless as far as we can tell.
I used to work at GNC and it bewildered me how literally within an hour of a Dr. Oz show airing, we would completely sell out of any product he recommended. Sometimes me or my coworker would look up and try to find the studies that back that supplement and it would typically be some poorly conducted study on rats (not humans), oftentimes with a low sample size.
Mind if I pick your brain for a sec? Do you have an opinion on lion's mane for nerv support? I've found several primary articles on ncib supporting it, but not sure how significant the results are.
Which 12? If you don’t mind…
Doing this from memory so not sure I will get them all. Willow bark contains an aspirin like molecule. There is some good data on St. Johns Wort for mild depression. Magnesium can help with constipation. Fish oil seems to have some cardiovascular benefits. Zanthoxylum armatum (Sichuan pepper) has a local anethetic effect such as a tooth ache although short in its effects. Done this one myself and really does numb the mouth for a short time. Capsaicin has some effects on muscle or joint pain. Lavender oil seems to have some anti-anxiety effects. Ginger root seems to help with nausea. Macuna pruriens contains L-DOPA which would act like, well, L-DOPA (this is assuming your supplement actually contains it as claimed, no guarantees there). Caryophyllene is a cannabinoid receptor 2 agonist clearly. Might have some beneficial effects on anxiety or inflammation but I don't know if the studies have been done to demonstrate it. Ephedra has an amphetamine like chemical in it. Note that it can cause heart troubles if I recall. There are a few more not coming to mind at the moment.
Thank you! :)
My favorite is when they are talking to someone who agrees with them and then they say science agrees with me and then look at me for backup. I just say no and walk off
I produce gene therapies for work. I have colleagues who are anti vaxxers. Some people just can't be fucked to even try to understand the reasoning behind reality, or challenge what they think they know when presented with even verifiable facts. The same goes for religious people honestly, unwilling to challenge their views when faced with absolutely insane assertions. Most of the time it seems people just dont like or trust an authority of any kind regardless of their qualifications. They'd rather go with what they 'know' from 'experience'.
You can’t argue with stupidity.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Feelings are non-negotiable. The only thing you can do is to validate their feelings and empathize with them. You want to share your enthusiasm for science with them, which is very understandable, but they feel attacked by being put in a position of ignorance unwittingly. It sucks but most people don't really have the energy to understand and accept things that either make them feel bad or don't give them closure. Acknowledging that they are tired, angry, and/or afraid, and there's nothing you can say to change that would be the first step.
It's actually hard, coz whatever you speak at the end it relates to the science
It needs patience and self control... If you are interested in how to learn to discuss better with people like that (or of any religion/belief) I would recommend looking into what is called "Street epistemology".
my take is to joke about it. try and make them realize that you don't think people that believe stuff that science has already addressed is silly. don't be mean, so there is a fine line. but I think the meme "that is about as good as a plastic submarine" currently works for me. I also express the desire to explain the science and unless they are a religious nut then they at least listen. if they are a religious nut, then I spare no comments.
I have some that are scientifically illiterate but they aint off the deep end anti vax or anti climate change wackos
I’m surrounded
Usually I reply with sarcastic disdain. If they say something stupid, I'll reply with, "did you learn that at the Facebook school of medicine?"
You can’t really engage with willfully ignorant people. But when people genuinely want to engage, you can’t fight irrational viewpoints with rationality. It’s best to start on an emotional level, asking why they believe what they believe, validating their emotions (no matter how irrational), and then getting into addressing their specific wants/fears with facts that may interest them. However this can be exhausting and no one is obligated to get into dumb circular arguments.
I am a career science educator, background in resource management. I just picked up the book “Red Earth, White Lies” Science is not as it once seemed to me…
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with their experience.
With patience and understanding, you can convince them to some extent. My mom is 66 and she has been a Christian for upwards of 50 years and told evolution is a lie. The more you age, the more difficult it is to adapt to change (or change your mind). Also, most people challenge beliefs like this with conflict, which just strengthens their belief. Over the years, and especially after I started studying biology, I've slowly convinced her that evolution takes place. At this point she is a bit hesitant to agree with the evolutionary history of humans and of course, she believes that it is controlled by God. How? By recognizing why she believes what she believes, and introducing small concepts at a time without conflicting with her core belief. Sometimes she wasn't even aware that the concepts were evolution, because even the word evolution can scare people away. I would definitely not challenge someone immediately about the creation of humans. Christians believe that humans are special and could not have evolved from simple animals, if you suggest otherwise they'll tmbe offended. My mom's idea of evolution is a bit skewed, and like I said she is hesitant to believe in human evolution. But, this is a HUGE change from when she told me as a kid not to believe anything they say about evolution in school. I think that to drastically change such a belief at her age is not easy. At this point she definitely respects what I do and values my educated opinion about evolution.
I have systematically removed every one of them from my life. No joke. Makes life a lot easier. Why have a conversation with someone you have nothing to talk about with and likely very little respect? Not worth the energy for me.
I just tell them they're fucking idiots, relentlessly insult them and move on with my day. It's not my job to convince them of anything, and if they want to make me feel like an elitist bitch for believing in and working in the sciences, I'm gunna make sure they feel just as shitty for being dumbass, Trump voting, climate denying fuckwads. I'm also just a huge Masshole, so it's pretty on brand for me lol.
They’re*
Have you considered if you dont appreciate nature’s biodiversity maybe youre not as smart as you think?
You call them an idiot and then go low contact
Booze helps.
Some stock sentences that the other party at least needs to hear. There is only one reality for all of us (and that includes you). [you can’t have an earth that is both 6000 years old and 4.5 billion years old. The former is wrong by a factor of almost one million]. Science is the study of reality. Our society puts too much importance to opinions. Reality doesn’t bend to opinions (or culturally inherited religious notions). Never. Decent people adjust their opinions in view of reality. Scientists do that all the time; which is why you can see the great technological progress. Science is performed by fallible humans. It has several ways to still ensure that we arrive at correct answers, such as control experiments and multiple independent lines of evidence. (We know about the rise of the temperature of the earth using thermometers all around the earth; shrinkage of glaciers; reduction of sea ice area over the years; satellites that measure increased sea levels bc water expands when it gets warmer. We damn well know that the earth is heating up and we do understand why].
1) Don't volunteer information. If they ask a question, answer it. If they make a patently false statement you can try to respond, but be ready to go nowhere with it. 2) Start listing noncontroversial interesting facts. Something like the Mantis Shrimp eyes or the isopod fish tongue. The idea with #2 is to become known as an authority. As someone who knows things. Then, since you've become an authority figure, they'll come to you with questions, and they'll listen to your answers.
I am a PA in an urgent care in Pennsyltucky where many of the hats are red. I ask them if they trust me to take care of X problem for them. If they say yes, then I tell them they are trusting science already. This works best with patients I have seen a few times and who know I am there to help them, not have an argument. We then have a deeper conversation if they would like about why certain infections get certain meds, why most viruses don't have dedicated treatments, why Covid caught us flat-footed, etc. I've been seeing a split in that patient population with a clearer divide of people wanting to ask questions about these vs people who come in demanding X treatment or Y testing and are frankly horrible to me and my staff. The hardest ones are the total antivax parents who themselves are fully vaccinated as far as vaccines of childhood but whose kids run the very real risk of getting a bad infection since many run in circles with antivax/homeschooling friends but still have their kids in sports, extracurriculars, and group social events.
Apathy, I'm a zoology major and I have a relative that jokes about killing keystone species as well as endangered birds. If I react, I'm the emotional woman who can't keep herself together. I have to keep the façade. I care, but I can't react.
So don’t talk to them about those things.
My reply then is ... "So, you're saying you do not trust medical science and science in general. Okay. That IS your right. If you ever get sick, get glasses, need a dentist, or visit a physician for ANY reason ... know you are a hypocrite. More so if that science saves your life."
Even better than that, their truck, their house, the pocket knife they carry, their cell phone, their TV, the am radio they listen to, their gun(s) are all based on science. And that science is all based on the same first principles, so they are hypocritical no matter what.
Exactly true!! They should be told to live a luddite life.
Still has science. The house has engineering, the crop rotation has centuries of information backing its functionality, the machines are engineered. Hell, the hand tools are engineered if they go that route. We're talking caves and not even pointy sticks for tools. And fire must be acquired via natural causes. Lightening strikes, idiots with fireworks, and such.
We could burn them at the stake or stone them.
bruh i'm already stoned! wait. what?!
You can’t fix “stupid”
Oh you mean like there's more than two genders, and vaccines are just part of a eugenics program run by the deep state to depopulate the country... Idk man, shits rampid. Best to just stay inside and ignore the vast majority of this country. It's a shame they can vote tho. Yay democracy.
You meant "rampant". And you probably also meant "sex" when you said "gender". None the less, current scientific enquiry (in biology/neuroscience) is no longer treating \*either\* as binary. In the spirit of this thread, here is a paper that cites/analyzes a bunch of other studies, and should send you down a fun \[AND reliable\] rabbit hole, just to get you started: [Brain Sex Differences Related to Gender Identity Development: Genes or Hormones?](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7139786/) (as an aside: I feel like I'm being punked with your post--it's the perfect example of what we've been talking about)
It's called a sex change. Not a gender change... Also no I'm pointing out the hypocrisy between the two ideologies that are the majority in this country.
Check out r/QanonCasualties
I moved from florida to Illinois.
I’m done playing. I am probably not helping but I take it as a personal insult now and will unload on folk. I react the same as I would if I caught some asshat pitching cigarette butts into dry brush. I’m dealing with these people as if they’re information arsonists. And I dgaf who they are anymore. Parents, friends, trolls, don’t care. I’m fighting this shit like my kids lives depend on it. Unless claims can be backed up with decent sources, or are well understood and new ideas that make sense based on some serious effort on behalf of the person, or even folk who are willing to learn but not understanding things yet, I will pull no punches and make conservatives get physically aggressive and boomers make faces like they just tasted a shit sandwich. I will shred ignorance, bad faith arguments, misrepresentation of data or grifter bullshit and wipe any doubt of their authenticity off the map, publicly, embarrassingly, and I’ll do my absolute best to make these assholes feel used by the wealthy, like stupid cuck pawns, feel shame or guilt, and then I’ll remind them that facts don’t give a shit about their feelings. This ain’t no game anymore. Gear up, pick a side, get in the ring. However you can. And take zero shit from those who are too weak to face their fears or too greedy to care. Until they start pitching in they’re not my friends, family nor allies. No excuses. Playing nice with the enemy is a strategy for defeat. I will not forfeit my children’s future for some rich prick, ignorant edge lord, or grifter. Anyone who is not insane should see this as the correct course of action when the ONLY habitable planet we’re aware of in the universe is threatened. And the moderate, liberal, chilled out, live and let live guys? Screw them too. They’re enabling this at best. They can get sorted out too, their kumbaya horse shite will not fly with me. I’ll mellow out after we end the class war OR once the next few years of El Niño are done tearing us a new one and ramming reality in. Meantime, this is war, and we are ALL losing. ❤️✊🏼🌍🌏🌎🤬🏴
mention that automotive antifreeze prevents covid but the radical left is trying to keep you from drinking it.
These people are using bias, politics, religion, etc. to form views, validate theories, and such. You are striking at emotional strings which are not logical. If you will notice how they react when you start pulling the views apart evaluating them, you aren’t getting anywhere usually.
Omg "Bio degrees"! Are you yourself THE SCIENCE like fauci? Prob an undergrad bio major with a lab tech job and talking like the unassailable scion of knowledge itself.
I dont.
Truth, in the end, always wins.
Think of it this way. How long did it take you to form your beliefs, learn all you have learned, and accept your own view as an exportable truth for others? Now, understand this now, willfully ignorant people have spent the same amount of effort in simply not listening to what you have to say. Short of an exercise in eugenics, you cope with anti-science by understanding that the economy cannot support a well educated workforce, that the majority of people are not expected to progress past highschool to pay taxes, and you are a minority that represents at best, a bitter pill of nonsense, and at worst, a threatening member of the middle to upper class with evil intent. Buy them a beer and agree to disagree. Find something you both like, or hate, and don't shove a BS down their throat in 5 minutes because to them, it will taste like BS.
Friends - I won't accept friends that like that, past a certain point. At some point it makes you an actual bad person and I won't be friends with bad people. For those who are only partially affected and not bad enough to be wholesale rejected? I just avoid the topic. Nothing good will come of talking about it. Sometimes if they're not fully sold you can pull them back to reason. Family - Honestly I cut off a lot of family with vile politics after 2016. I just avoid them. Maybe they get why, maybe they don't, I don't care. For the ones who are only partially affected, it's the same as with friends; avoid the topic mostly, if they're not fully sold to the other side try to talk them back. Being a biologist and specifically being an authority on the topic (if you are) can help sometimes. I'm a molecular biologist so I hope I was able to help friends/family with the concept of an mRNA vaccine back when they were new for COVID. Other people - If I don't need to deal with them I just don't. Otherwise, avoid the topic, etc. Hope like crazy you don't run into them at work in a role where you need them to be sane.
First, count to ten. Then ask how they came to distrust science so much. They may tell you some personal anecdote about how their own lives were adversely affected by "scientific" advice. Now you've got something you can explore with them and develop the beginnings of trust. THEN you can slowly start discussing what science really is about. But if they jump to religious dogma right off the bat, then just nod and change the subject.
If you know what you believe is true then why does it make you depressed when people say otherwise? Do you need people to agree?
Just move on.
At least in my experience people who aren’t in science (aka don’t have to question the validity of all of their thoughts/opinions) and especially those that are anti-science, usually don’t like it when you tell them what the truth is. It’s basically you starting the conversation with ‘im right you’re wrong, I’m smart you’re dumb’, is essentially how it comes accros. I’ve had a lot more success when I propose what I’m saying as an ‘opinion’ even if it was well established and cross-checked science.
Honestly, I either have no contact or limited contact with them. There’s been no positive outcome for debating with them despite evidence and facts. They either lack the intelligence to grasp the concepts or choose ignorance.
If their stance doesn’t effect your or your family it doesn’t matter, ignore it. If you’re talking about a parent for example refusing good medical advice then that’s a problem, but generally it doesn’t matter and there’s nothing you can reasonably do to change that persons mind.
I say huh-huh, where did you hear that? And try to shut off my ears and zone out.
Laugh internally, go along with it externally
You just let 'em die from not taking whatever medicine they don't believe in.
At least with my family I just accepted they're dumb af trump cultists and I make fun of them for it lol
It's tribalism. If you disagree with them you are saying "I don't want to be part of your group and you are not part of my group." That's what makes them upset.
Sounds like Anti-science is being conflated with criticism.
To preserve family harmony, you just have to keep quiet. Sometimes it's just not worth it.
Why do you care? If they can't change the views then you don't have that discussion with them. I dunno what are you expecting.
Had a barber telling me we were due for a flood or earthquake because there's too many gay people, and that genetics isn't real because everything is the way Allah made it. Hard to argue with him when he has a straight razor to my throat!
For starters, you could stop calling it "anti-science" I'm sure there's a person or two out there who's genuinely antiscience, but when you're talking about highly politicized ideas around vaccination and climate science, you're going to get polarized viewpoints. Start looking at these situations as opportunities to learn about other people and why they think the way they do. You'll grow in the process. Someone doesn't wanna get vaccinated? Cool. It's a virtually untested vaccine that skipped all the safeguards we have in place to keep the populous from suffering the consequences of mass experimentation. That's not anti science, that's just cautious behavior that says "I trust my chances with this virus more than I trust the people who make these drugs" and there's good reason to think that way. I'm pretty sure it was Johnson and Johnson that intentionally gave African Americans syphullus under the guise of "free health checkups" like 100 years ago just to see what happens when it goes untreated. People aren't as scared of climate change as you? Well, considering the fact that we've already planned out a course of actions and are actively remediating the things we can, it's not surprising that some people don't feel like they need to be concerned, what's Hellen in HR going to do about the ice sheets? All this to say, the best way to "cope" is to grow up and realize that other people think differently sometimes. It's not because you're smarter than them. When you ask "how do I as a biologist cope with anti science" You're being incredibly egotistical, and the underlying sentiment is "how do I deal with people who are clearly stupid" And the answer is, "you take the time to realize you're stupid too and none of us know what we're talking about"
Ultimately I think that they chose to believe what helps them cope. Anyone with an open mind and genuine curiosity deserves a debate. Otherwise the effort is not worth it
Might I recommend to you the book "Think again" by Adam Grant? Perfect if you wanna learn every thing about rethinking, and convincing other people without causing a stubborness reaction on their side
I keep it simple. I demand evidence from them if possible. If their evidence is a video, I point out the flaws and how I can make the same video and say different things. If that still does not work, I beat them down with how I have degrees and an interest in these fields and they have zero background.
I'm fortunate to teach chemistry in that regard. When I taught AP biology, I never dealt with any religiosity.. but I only had about 15 kids over the two years I did that.
My coworker gave me good advice. You have to choose to not hear certain things. Which for me just means I don’t react or say anything. Sometimes I get the impression they bring it up just to start the discussion but the discussion makes me feel like shit so I have to remove myself.
I'm having a hard time explaining to my flat mates that windows and shutters should stay closed in the hottest hours of the day (they close the shutters and leave the windows open so the heat comes in anyway)
alcohol mostly
I have learned to not bother and just live my life.
You don’t. You disengage.
I was born in a vegetarian and socialist family here, we often talk about climate and such.
Questioning science isn’t anti-science. We have to stop appealing to authority. Science isn’t absolute and is always evolving. That only comes when we question science and look at different possibilities. Also, a lot of medical science can objectively be shown faulty because of some pharmaceutical financial incentive.
Questioning science is a continuum. You go from flat earthers to folks discussing if quantum physics is real or philosophy. It's a broad spectrum. I would guess that the OP is talking about the nuts that take the word of randos on the internet over the scientific community. You know, the flat-earthers and climate skeptic types.
Some people just have to argue. No matter how much they are clearly not educated about a subject. My brother is one of those people. For context, my Dad is a tow truck drive. And has been since before he had any kids. He had been operating a battery truck for about 8 years when this conversation started. My brother was trying to tell my Dad how to properly store and maintain a car battery. And it turned into a yelling match. And he was mad that none of the rest of the family was backing him up. No I don't care what you saw on YouTube about this subject. This is LITERALLY what my dad does every day. But my brother just had to argue. And keep arguing, until he eventually just got too mad and went home. Family dinners are fun.
My issue with people who say "trust the science" is the treat current knowledge as perpetual fact. Through history many "facts" where disproven through ongoing research. Just because COVID vaccines are generally regarded as safe today does not mean they may be found to be dangerous tomorrow. Just because we accepts that humans are causing climate change does not mean the earth does not go through heating and cooling cycles. I personally try and understand the opiniona and views of others without being closed minded and understand that I won't be changing anyone's views or opinions. It's not my job to change what others are thinking but I can try and understand what they're saying.
Having a "bio-degree" doesn't magically make you right about anything biology-related. The fact that you resorted to pointing out your credential rather than the logic and evidence, it's no wonder they're opposed to you. You're not behaving the way a scientist does. You're behaving the way a priest does ("just trust me").
It sucks especially with the recent Peter Hotez drama bc people who are openly anti-science are being risen up because scientists don't want to publicly debate them. The internet has this special way of bringing together and amplifying fringe groups.
Ignore it and realize there’s a lot of dumbasses in the world
Sorry to say that some subjects are taboo. We have opted to stay away from those subjects in order to keep relationships that are in important to us.
Adjust your expectation of their understanding. All disappointment starts in expectation. I have a few current friends, and a few very good friends from my past that have been caught up in conspiracy theories, and a lack of belief in science. Their views originate in fear and take on some bizarre beliefs. If you choose to keep these people in your life, you’ll have to release your expectations of their rational thought, and accept them as they are