A Voice in the Echo Chamber

"If we teach only the findings and products of science - no matter how useful and even inspiring they may be - without communicating its critical method, how can the average person possibly distinguish science from pseudoscience?" "The method of science, as stodgy and grumpy as it may seem, is far more important than the findings of science" - (Carl Sagan, 1995).

This is wonderfully articulated. Carl Sagan has a definite way with words, a true communicator of science. For the thinking and intuitive person, this may make sense. But, it may be a bit too deep and "thinky" for the average person, as just expressed by my coworker. The average person just wants to watch TV, go home to their partner/spouse/family/pet and eat their dinner. Maybe this is the reason that psychics and homeopaths make so much money. Is it true that the average person doesn't really care enough? To me, this means that science communication is more important than ever.

As science communicators, when we gain entrance to an echo chamber, we must be aware of the pitfalls. Usually, as soon as you post a study or give an opinion against their ideology, you will have names thrown at you, something along the lines of shill, troll, or told that your account is fake. This kind of behaviour is most common in antivaccinationist groups. It can become quite difficult to get your point across. Quite often, ad hominem attacks will come out instead of facts. Admittedly and unfortunately, both sides are guilty of ad hominem.
Ad hominem arguments take away from the message. For anyone who has ever engaged in an argument online, against someone who disagrees with you, you will know how unlikely it is to convince a hardliner. Antivaccinationist hardliners, the ones with the Gish gallop (proof by verbosity), the ones with the copypasta ready and waiting, the ones who will fight tooth and nail against you, posting debunked or cherry-picked data, some link from Natural News, from Mercola; they will not be convinced by facts, data or studies. The ones you are fighting for (and keeping your composure!) are the fence-sitters. 

Within any setting online, Facebook, YouTube, the comment section of a news article etc, there are fence-sitters present. There are people, expectant parents, parents with new children, people with friends who are wondering whether or not to vaccinate, or whether or not to share that bullshit video or meme from David Wolfe, and the way that facts are presented matters. If both sides devolve into ad hominem attacks and start belittling each other, instead of focusing on a coherent argument, nobody wins. The fence-sitter may walk away thinking that the antivaccine argument was scary enough to take notice of. Here comes another unvaccinated petri dish into the world.

The most hateful and disturbing group would have to be "Stop Mandatory Vaccination". A group of (at time of writing) 128,000 members. The Facebook page is bad enough and was the first page I was ever banned from. The group and page alike are full of anecdotes from people either making up stories of vaccine injuries or false correlation of vaccine injuries. Things like Autism to Shaken Baby Syndrome are blamed on vaccination.

It has been said that Facebook itself is one big echo chamber. Due to its algorithms and the pages that you like and the friends who may like the same things you do or believe the same things as you. Unless you go out of your way to read things that oppose your views, you're constantly surrounded by things that you agree with. I have been asked on many occasions how and why I'm in groups that I don't agree with. My answer is always the same; "There's nothing wrong with hearing the other side of the argument. I'm here as a voice in the echo chamber, for the fence-sitters". These include antivaccination and natural cancer cure groups, that advocate against chemotherapy and other conventional cancer treatment.

Facebook is full of arguments. They can be productive, draining, rewarding, shattering, exhilarating friendship-destroying, pointless... so many words come to mind. There are so many groups that push a science-denial message that it can be extremely disruptive to them to have a science advocate suddenly speak up and put a cat among the pigeons. These opportunities must not be taken lightly. If you make a claim and one person has their mind changed, that can be considered a win. If one person decides to have conventional cancer treatment after all, or not to force bleach on their kid, or to vaccinate their kid, these are wins.

Be a voice in the echo chamber. Keep your composure. Keep the message in mind. If you do feel the need for ad hominem, keep it separate from the message. Don't say "You're a fucking idiot, so you're wrong", rather "You're wrong because of this and this and these, you fucking idiot". You're not basing your argument or point on the insult, it's just in the package. Skeptical Raptor put it perfectly here.

Back to Carl Sagan's quote from above. Sometimes, posting a study is not enough. Posting facts and results is not enough. The big rebuttal from science-deniers is usually "That was a Big Pharma-paid study, conspiracy, blah blah blah". Try taking the time to explain how the results were reached. Not everyone understands the scientific method.

Not everyone will listen. You may be banned from the group, blocked by the individual, ridiculed, labelled all sorts of names, shill, troll, paid poison pusher etc. But, think about the fence-sitters, the ones not engaging in the argument, but may base their decision on this argument.

Happy arguing.

Sincerely,
Skeptical Kiwi.