Science communicator: School trips show why conspiracy theories don’t stand up
22. Apr 2024 at 14:42
I
Hoaxes promote tribal thinking.
We know gravity is stronger at the poles, because they are closer to the earth’s centre. It can be measured. If the earth was flat earth, so many things would be completely different.
“When you look at what flat earthers have to say, their answers often contradict each other, raising more questions that demand more answers. It becomes a tangled mess. That’s a sign that there’s probably something wrong with it,” says physicist and science communicator Juraj Tekel.
In an interview with the Slovak Spectator, Tekel explains why communicating facts is not enough, why people are attracted to hoaxes and conspiracies, and communicating science through videos.
At the beginning of April, dust from the Sahara was recorded in Slovakia. This is a common occurrence, yet a group of people believe that, like chemtrails, it was released from planes. The meteorologists’ explanations did nothing to persuade them otherwise. Is it a good idea to try to communicate science in such situations?
We have proof that it is not. Not even a good education is enough – there are educated people who believe nonsense. It would be good to spread both hard and soft facts, such as the difference between hoaxes and conspiracies, why they arise, and why people are attracted to them.
Why do people like them?
One thing is that they create a community, and in this community we think we are a small group of people who know what this world is about. Conspiracies and hoaxes promote tribal thinking. Words like ‘sheeple’ are associated with the community. We are good, ‘they’ are bad. It may have been justified in the past, but not so much these days. The second thing is that we are where we are because we are a pattern-seeking species. We enjoy discovering things. When it comes to laws of nature, that’s great, because then we have cell phones. However, if a person with this kind of brain jumps on the wrong bandwagon, they begin to see patterns where there are none.
What comes to mind in this regard is the ‘flat earth’ theory. Its proponents hold scientific conferences. I saw a video the other day with a thumbnail that read that the best flat earther debunker is a flat earther who surmised that one of their experiments showed the earth is round, but they were not convinced.
Obviously, scientific arguments don’t work. Research shows that even when a person is given a mathematical proof, the result is that they will double down on their beliefs. That’s how our brain works. Opinions are an important part of our personality, and when someone challenges them, we feel uncomfortable, like when someone attacks us. The same brain centres are activated in both situations. If our goal is to fight against them, just spreading facts like water with a hose is not the way to do it, quite the opposite.
video //www.youtube.com/embed/JTfhYyTuT44
What can be done then?
People have to realise it themselves. They should get enough data in a suitable form and have a chance to put it together themselves. You are not going to convince someone, they have to do it themselves. It has to come from them. Let’s not kid ourselves, there are people who are unable to do it. It doesn’t matter that by using a navigation app to get to a pizzeria I’m proving that the earth is round.
For every such argument, a flat earther will find something that looks consistent and convincing to them. Actually, they have a million explanations for a million questions. I have one explanation for a million questions: the earth is round. And from that follows everything else you might want to ask about phenomena on the planet. Really, so many things would work differently [if the earth was flat]. To be precise, the earth is not round, it is elliptical. We understand that and can incorporate it into explanations, and we know that gravity is stronger at the poles as opposed to the equator because in the case of the latter, we are farther from the centre of the Earth. And we can measure this.
When you look at what flat earthers have to say, their answers often contradict each other, creating more questions that demand more answers. It becomes a tangled mess. That’s a sign that there’s probably something wrong with it. A good theory, a good model of nature, is one where new answers do not contradict what we have learned before, but on the contrary fit in nicely. It may seem like the world is a complicated place, leading to someone thinking that a secret agreement was sealed in Davos. No. This is not what I think, but I like it. Anyone who has ever organised a school trip knows that conspiracy theories cannot work.
Why?
