Why Trust – More Than Facts – Matters When Engaging With Science Deniers

For generations, science was one of the few things most people agreed on. No matter their education, political beliefs, or religion, most people trusted scientists, the scientific process, and the results of scientific inquiry.

Today, the public’s trust in science is eroding, particularly among young people. A recent survey of 13- to 24-year-olds found that 40 percent of them weren’t sure if science helps the world more than it harms it – that’s about 14 percentage points higher than a similar survey of adults found in 2019. In France, trust in science among young people has fallen by 22 points since 1972.

This skepticism, doubt, or outright disbelief in science (and scientists) may be one reason why conspiracy beliefs have become all too common among the public and our civic and business leaders, and why we need more critical thinking in science. And it has led researchers, philosophers, and others to question how society can reel deniers back in.

As Lee McIntyre of Boston University’s Center for Philosophy and History of Science put it: How do you talk to a science denier?

Fortunately, there’s pretty good research on how to do it effectively, whether the person is a flat Earther, an anti-vaxxer, or a climate change denier. But before diving into how to engage with these folks, let’s first discuss how not to talk to science skeptics or conspiracy believers, because understanding what doesn’t work will make it easier to see what does work, and why.

First, don’t bombard them with facts or evidence. Intuitively, this is what most people want to do because most people believe that facts matter and evidence persuades. But they fail to realize that, generally speaking, science deniers are not interested in your evidence. They’ve already seen it and explained it away. Bombarding them with more doesn’t help. In fact, it may cause them to dig in their heels.

Those who study extremism and conspiracy theories have concluded that people are often driven to these beliefs – not by ignorance or a lack of evidence – but by anger, resentment, grievance, and ideology. Therefore, a brusque approach, or one that disparages their intelligence, or is condescending will also not be effective.

What’s required instead, is patience and relationship-building. Creating trust is crucial for hard-core deniers. Also, face-to-face conversations are important. It’s unlikely that a hardcore denier will be convinced by a series of emails or social media posts from someone they do not know.

Next, couple that approach with what’s called a “Technique Rebuttal.” Rather than argue facts, try instead to expose the flaws in the logic and reasoning that they used to arrive at their out-of-the-norm conclusions. Recent research shows that this can be an effective rebuttal strategy.

Researchers who study denialism in its many forms also note that deniers often use the same techniques, no matter the topic: They cherry-pick their evidence and rely on fake experts; they believe in conspiracies; they engage in illogical reasoning; and they insist on perfection from the other side, i.e. unless man-made climate change can be proved with 100 percent certainty, it’s not a credible theory.

What is especially appealing about using the “Technique Rebuttal” is that you don’t need to be an expert in, say, climate science to do it. You do, however, need to know a little bit about logical reasoning and the logical fallacies that deniers often use in their arguments. Here are the common ones:

Confirmation bias: As mentioned earlier, science deniers almost always cherry-pick the data that supports their viewpoint while ignoring or dismissing contradictory evidence. Similarly, they seek out and accept only information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs. Science deniers may actively avoid or discredit data that challenges their position, leading to a distorted view of the scientific consensus.

Ad hominem attacks: Attacking the character or motives of scientists or experts rather than engaging with the evidence. By discrediting individuals, science deniers attempt to undermine the credibility of their findings. This was widely seen during the COVID-19 pandemic when Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the time, was attacked for everything from being dishonest and unqualified to being “corrupt to the core.” Of course, none of these personal attacks addressed the scientific evidence or the validity of Dr. Fauci’s statements. Rather, they aimed to discredit him personally in order to dismiss his expertise on the pandemic.

False dichotomy: Deniers often present a situation as an either-or choice. Then, by showing that one of the possibilities is wrong they contend that they have “proved” their beliefs to be true when, in fact, there are actually more options or nuances involved. Again, this was seen during the pandemic. When some vaccinated people still got COVID, anti-vaxxers used this to “prove” the vaccines didn’t work.

Strawman arguments: This occurs when one side radically distorts the position of their opponent so that it’s easier to argue against. In debates around evolution, denialists often mischaracterize the theory by claiming that it states “humans evolved from monkeys.” This ignores the actual scientific understanding that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor but evolved along separate evolutionary paths.

Coupled with trust and empathy, the “Technique Rebuttal” approach can be effective. Undercutting these logical fallacies can open the door to changing the mind of a denier. Often, the case of former Congressman and NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine is held up as an example of this happening in real life.

As a Republican member of Congress, Bridenstine was a strident denier of climate change. In speeches, he denied that the Earth’s temperature was even rising. During his confirmation hearing to lead NASA, he dodged questions and hedged his answers on the issue.

Then, about a year after assuming leadership of NASA – which produces more climate science than just about any organization on Earth – he reversed course, saying, “I believe fully in climate change and that we human beings are contributing to it in a major way.”

What caused the change?

After getting to know the scientists and departments within NASA conducting the research, Bridenstine concluded there was no reason to doubt them. In other words, he trusted them. These scientists have “clearly stated it is extremely likely … that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming, and I have no reason to doubt the science that comes from that,” Bridenstine said during a Senate hearing in 2018.

Will all science deniers have a revelation in their thinking like Bridenstine? Probably not. As Prof. McIntyre noted in a talk in 2022, some deniers have been “marinating in science misinformation for years.” For them, these beliefs may be too ingrained to be discarded.

But, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.