[cthalupa]

>Somebody like Graham Hancock is actually delivering more people to the pipeline of scientific understanding than Richard Dawkins. We don't want to hear it but it's true.

This is a pretty bold statement. You are arguing that psuedoscience is resulting more people being scientific than actual science is?

Such an extraordinary claim needs some significant evidence behind it.

[banmeagaindan2]

Is it really an extraordinary claim? In your own experience have you never settled for a poorer model of something, a lower resolution because you feel either you didn't have the cognitive resources to get there or you felt unmotivated? When the topic becomes more complex - this happens to more and more people.

If you have a compelling story you may be motivated to sip on the subject. After a time you probably shrug off the old understanding and get to something more robust and probably more scientific.

I acknowledge some people will head into annoying dead ends - but you have to respond to the question of whether you prefer some people to be wrong and some people get to better places - or if you want most of those people to have checked out altogether. After all it seems to me that longer people ponder on it the more it is they converge on something - often something true or useful. Those are your choices. If you want to call me a liar then I suggest taking this seriously means getting a whole lot better at telling stories that go in the direction you approve of instead of what to the inside looks like doubling down on accuracy but to the outside looks like obfuscation.

Practical test - A lot of scientists are concerned about CO2 emissions and climate change. A lot of the population thinks they're full of shit because of politics. Some people have noticed though - that there doesn't exist a conflict of interests in getting improved technologies that happen to reduce CO2 emissions. Just as many right wingers are going to buy passive houses, closed loop energy, solar panels, Teslas as left wingers. Instead of perusing this thought a lot of people veer off into sermonizing on the topic - but I have to wonder why anybody gives a shit about the means when it seems like pushing on one lever gets instant blowback and pushing on the technology lever wins friends every time. It's almost as if all these groups have ulterior motives different to the public facing ones.

[cthalupa]

I don't quite understand how we go from "Ancient aliens" to "real science" - I've never spoken to someone who believed in that stuff as the jumping off point that later went on to being curious about actual science when they weren't previously.

>Just as many right wingers are going to buy passive houses, closed loop energy, solar panels, Teslas as left wingers.

I also don't know that this is actually true. I as only able to find "what do you want to buy" polling for cars, but in a study surveying actual solar usage, it's 34% democrat and 20% republican.

https://www.autoblog.com/2016/10/26/democrats-tesla-republic...

https://grist.org/article/republicans-are-buying-rooftop-sol...

But I think this is also a false premise - that somehow conspiracy theory nuts have the same impact on public perception of science as one of the most public scientific issues with consensus from tens of thousands of scientists including basically 100% of the leading experts in the field. And the fact that there are long term economic advantages for things like solar, etc. that don't take into account at all whether or not you believe in man made climate change.

[banmeagaindan2]

True - but most people never become scientists - not even amateurs - but there exists a flourishing industry of science books for people who are a bit science curious. Scott Alexander used to be a giant Hancock fan - anecdotal I know but he later realized it was sort of bullshit - but still was interested in deep archaeology. I'll call that a win.

On the stats - that's a rabbit hole I won't go down today but every time I've seen people talk about alternatives to the system the left and right become like a long married couple ending each other's sentences.

>And the fact that there are long term economic advantages for things like solar, etc. that don't take into account at all whether or not you believe in man made climate change.

Sure.

> But I think this is also a false premise - that somehow conspiracy theory nuts have the same impact on public perception of science as one of the most public scientific issues with consensus from tens of thousands of scientists including basically 100% of the leading experts in the field.

There I think you're making a mistake. Literary people think Proust is awesome. A lot of people have read Dan Brown. Who is having more impact? You're making a face now - I can see through the interneticals.