[toomuchequate]

By the way, be careful who you tell this to.

The anti-intellectuals will spin this to prove their own points without any understanding of math or physics.

I've seen this happen, and they are very confident, their 'friends' don't know either. When it comes time, will anti-intellectuals trust scientists or their neighbor?

[__MatrixMan__]

I disagree with the need for a warning. I think it would be better if this were _more_ commonly used.

So often debates arrive at a stasis like:

> "You're wrong"

> "No YOU'RE wrong"

And there they sit, each side certain that the other is an idiot.

The alternative is to admit that both parties are right according to their model, and that both models are wrong (because being right is not what models are for). I think this is better because the "which model is more useful" question sets up a lot more potentially fruitful interaction between opposite sides.

The danger you're referring to only occurs in a setting where science is implicitly authoritative in the first place. If we drop that assumption, science still produces the most useful models, but finding the most useful one for your project becomes less adversarial.

[Kattywumpus]

I'm going to remember this. It's a good way to have discussion if you're lucky enough to have someone who can abstract their personal views from the model that produced them.

[seandougall]

I want to believe that, but how do you evaluate models’ usefulness if you refuse to acknowledge facts and data, and just yell “fake news” when they point to a conclusion you don’t like?

[rexpop]

What do you hope to gain from combative dialogue with such people? Are you trying to change how they vote, or shop?

[7952]

It doesn't help that model outputs are often put forward as the main reason for doing something. For example with climate change. But often the problem being discussed is more complex than the single dimension that the science based argument relies on. You have to consider ethics, economics, social effects, and a whole host of other disciplines. People intuitively get this.

You have to have an argument that will pursuade the uneducated, poorly informed neighbor first. And often model outputs just don't cut it.

[toomuchequate]

>You have to have an argument that will pursuade the uneducated, poorly informed neighbor first.

An emotional/moral argument will be a coinflip with these people.

Will they side with the sad story of X, or the anti-intellectual sad story of Y?

I do not know the solution, I've seen others propose everything from hiding difficult to understand topics to calling them 'stupid' infront of their peers, etc...

Engaging them with logic and argument makes the problem worse.

Would be willing to hear ideas if people have them.

[afiori]

On a similar topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16974098

Convincing people is hard and starting from the position "I know better than them" only makes it harder. I understand that sometimes people are just wrong or are using fact incorrectly, but often this get inflated to an extreme degree by the "smarter" side.

For me an important distinction is whether people are using unsound arguments to support a position or are holding an unreasonable position. For climate change the problem (from our "let's save the planet" side) is that we want them to change opinion, not that they are misusing unsound arguments.

To solve this the only way is to start a two way conversation where you can communicate how and why you believe is important and they can do the same. It is hard to convince people that do not want to be convinced, it is even harder to lecture people that do not want to be lectured.

A good starting point is to show that you yourself are willing to reconsider their point of view as stuff like "calling them stupid" is the same as brewing social resentment.

[jacobush]

There are no shortcuts. You have to meet where they are, find common ground and build trust, both ways. It’s incredibly expensive and hard.

[7952]

Surely the mechanism for change is the political process. And at a smaller scale society is full of people trying to influence, change opinion and mainpulate. Surely you should just adopt those same methods?

It would be interesting to try and model people more directly. Like what political campaigns do, but with a more noble intent. Use the data to discover how to serve people's needs.

[ska]

“The map is not the territory”

This is a similar sentiment, but perhaps more useful initially in conversation with people who may get hung up on what “model” means. It can also lead to a fruitful analogy as people easily grasp why different kinds of maps are important.

[dfee]

I’ve never heard this phrase but I like it.

[ska]

Some context: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map–territory_relation

[marktani]

What is the meaning of being anti-intellectual and who are these anti-intellectuals you talk about?