Scan barcode
11corvus11's review
3.0
Painfully neoliberal at times, but there are good bits as well.
The good:
He discusses how science works and how that's very different from how much of the public is taught to view science (i.e. that it's either 100% proof or wrong rather than a process of testing, theorizing, discovering, and revising when necessary.
He stresses the importance of respecting one another, listening, and talking to each other. The sort of thing I need to remember is, "Do I actually want to persuade this person to wear a mask/get vaxxed/etc or do I just want to win?" I don't even like competition, but in stressful situations like a global pandemic, I do sometimes struggle.
He talks to miners about coal and climate change which is really important. Coal miners are often stuck between environmentalists from the city and putting food on their tables.
He visits a flat earther conference in the beginning and that part was just entertaining.
The bad:
He needs to take his own advice. He's very passionate about climate change. Well, he's passionate about the parts he wants to focus on. If someone else (re the gmo discussions) tries to bring up environmental concerns and that conflict with his argument (gmos are always good and safe full stop because they are safe to eat and can help with nutrient deficiency,) he just tosses it aside. If someone brings up monsanto, he brushes it off as science denial despite farmers killing themselves due to monsantos lawsuits or contamination.
He comes off as smug and closed off despite the book being about talking to each other more. No, being concerned about the environmental effects of genetically altering plants and animals is not the same as being anti-vax or vaccine hesitant. Even though he luckily talks to others who disagree, he still always frames it as him bringing them knowledge and not vice versa.
He is very neoliberal and seems to have no analysis of capitalism whatsoever. Kids starving worldwide could all be fed right now. We have the resources, we'd just rather throw them away, hoard them, or steal them than actually feed everyone. We could also feed everyone multiple times over with the food and land we use to exploit trillions of nonhuman animals per year for their flesh and secretions. (He also glosses over animal agriculture being one of the top climate change causes.)
Blah blah I could critique him for hours but at least he's willing to have a conversation. At least he believes in humanity and peoples potential. And I certainly didn't know all of the things I am preaching about in this interview 20 years ago. Someone had to talk to me, too.
The good:
He discusses how science works and how that's very different from how much of the public is taught to view science (i.e. that it's either 100% proof or wrong rather than a process of testing, theorizing, discovering, and revising when necessary.
He stresses the importance of respecting one another, listening, and talking to each other. The sort of thing I need to remember is, "Do I actually want to persuade this person to wear a mask/get vaxxed/etc or do I just want to win?" I don't even like competition, but in stressful situations like a global pandemic, I do sometimes struggle.
He talks to miners about coal and climate change which is really important. Coal miners are often stuck between environmentalists from the city and putting food on their tables.
He visits a flat earther conference in the beginning and that part was just entertaining.
The bad:
He needs to take his own advice. He's very passionate about climate change. Well, he's passionate about the parts he wants to focus on. If someone else (re the gmo discussions) tries to bring up environmental concerns and that conflict with his argument (gmos are always good and safe full stop because they are safe to eat and can help with nutrient deficiency,) he just tosses it aside. If someone brings up monsanto, he brushes it off as science denial despite farmers killing themselves due to monsantos lawsuits or contamination.
He comes off as smug and closed off despite the book being about talking to each other more. No, being concerned about the environmental effects of genetically altering plants and animals is not the same as being anti-vax or vaccine hesitant. Even though he luckily talks to others who disagree, he still always frames it as him bringing them knowledge and not vice versa.
He is very neoliberal and seems to have no analysis of capitalism whatsoever. Kids starving worldwide could all be fed right now. We have the resources, we'd just rather throw them away, hoard them, or steal them than actually feed everyone. We could also feed everyone multiple times over with the food and land we use to exploit trillions of nonhuman animals per year for their flesh and secretions. (He also glosses over animal agriculture being one of the top climate change causes.)
Blah blah I could critique him for hours but at least he's willing to have a conversation. At least he believes in humanity and peoples potential. And I certainly didn't know all of the things I am preaching about in this interview 20 years ago. Someone had to talk to me, too.
atuin's review against another edition
informative
3.5
A compassionate look into why people deny science, the definition of science denial, and how to communicate to people who deny science. I'll admit, I still feel angry with many deniers, but this book helped remind me that getting angry and yelling at them is not a good approach. Hopefully more people start using the methods of making respectful, personal connections to debunk conspiracy theories and help fix the mess we're in.
tobinlopes's review
4.0
It's a little old given it's coverage of "current" events up to early 2021, but still a valuable resource for how to approach science denialism and having hard conversations about many of our cultural ills.
papidoc's review
5.0
Excellent ideas for talking with people who (for reasons I just don't understand) reject science, scientific progress, scientific study, and who don't trust, respect, or appreciate the work scientists themselves are about. I don't think I'll ever understand how or why someone would reject the best available scientific thinking and the treatments and recommendations that come from it, but then turn around and accept whole cloth the fantastically ridiculous things advocated by people like Joe Rogan. Blows my mind, but the ideas in this book will help when talking with such people.