Thanks to NetGalley and Publisher for e-ARC.

McIntyre surprised me. The title and cover of this book gives the impression that the book will be a dull, if informative, ride. My favorite thing about this book was just how engaging the narrative was. It made all the information easier to digest and follow along.

While this presents itself as a how-to-guide for talking to science deniers, it felt more like an overview of what constitutes a denier and the types of them that exists. Interlaced into that are a series of studies that show what many of us likely expect: people are not so easily persuaded. Much of the definitive advice felt like it was based on very anecdotal examples.

Therefore, this book fails on its most basic level of providing clear cut, and evidence based approaches. Nevertheless, it still has plenty to say beyond that. While I did not get what I expected from the book, I did still learn a good deal, even in regions I consider myself fairly well versed. What's more, McIntyre does a deep discussion of a range of science that is often denied, as well as how it intersects with politics. It is all fascinating and enlightening.

The overarching message feels like its one of encouragement. Sure, the evidence of effectiveness is slim, but addressing deniers in a respectful conversation still remains the best case of persuading them. I will fully admit that I have long since given up discussing with someone about things where the science is fairly definitive, but, if anything, this book has encouraged me to be a bit less dismissive, particularly in my own circles.

I still think there is an issue with wasting time, as you cannot sit down and have an extensive conversation with everyone. Thats why my personal take away is to give more room for those close to me in simply acknowledging their ideas and addressing them head on.

Do I think this is a book worth reading: absolutely. It is educational, and while it is no panacea, it will offer some valuable guidance.

In this time of both Covid and climate, breaking through the bubbles we create around ourselves and our cultural identities becomes even more essential.

I wanted to read this book because in the last year and a half there seem to be more science deniers among my acquaintances. So far I've dealt with an overload of nonsense by blocking their feed from my timeline (I can deal with a little bit of nonsense - it's actually quite informative - but I don't want it to take over a substantial part of the timeline).

Lee McIntyre shows that science deniers on any topic use the same tactics:
* cherry-picking evidence
* belief in conspiracy theories
* reliance on fake experts (and the denigration of real experts)
* committing logical errors
* setting impossible expectations for what science can achieve

The way to talk to them - on their chosen topic of not following mainstream science - is pretty much the same for all: talk to them respectfully. That works in pretty much any conversation, regardless of topic.

The book starts out interesting, but I kind of lost interest around the GMO chapter. Mainly, I think, because Lee McIntryre wanted to find out if there is such a thing as liberal science denial. Does it matter?

I found the author to be very entertaining, especially when he was talking about things like his attending a flat earther's conference. As far as my actually learning methods and techniques to use while conversing with science deniers, I didn't learn a lot.
It basically comes down to treating people with respect, empathy, listening to them and asking them "what about ....." questions. The same techniques I employed in my law enforcement career. I find dealing with inmates flawed views of the world to be very similar to those of science deniers. Absolutely sure of the correctness of their opinions, willing to shout down those who disagree with them, and grandstanding were their methods of being the "alpha" dogs. Very much like I see today in the science deniers.
After years of dealing with those type of inmates, I found it best to not take things personally, to do my best to maintain control of the situation, not get into a shouting match, and to, when possible, walk away. Eventually they will find out that they can't rule the world, and, if not pushed into a corner, come around to a more evolved position.
Thanks to NetGalley for an advance reading copy of this book.

You can probably guess what drew me to this book. As a pastor and public theologian, it has become imperative that I know how to communicate with anti-vax, anti-mask, Qanon conspiracy theorists. And it’s not just because these are people I, as an evangelical Christian leader, need to counter. It’s because these are my people. Somehow, in some way—and you can trace it back to Scopes monkey trial—evangelical Christians became wary of science. (And in the secular realm, McIntyre traces it to cigarette and oil companies trying to effect public opinion on smoking and climate science, respectively.) In recent years, that occasionally healthy skepticism has blown into full-on denial and conspiracy in everything from climate change to COVID. How to Talk to A Science-Denier is a memoir/guidebook that tries to understand why people genuinely and earnestly believe in conspiracy theories and how we can best bring them back to reason.

Author Lee McIntyre is a research fellow at the Center for Philosophy and History of Science at Boston University and an Instructor in Ethics at Harvard Extension School. He has a Ph.D. in philosophy from University of Michigan and his professional interest has always been with the nature of how we obtain and validate scientific knowledge. The very first chapter sets the tone for the book, detailing McIntyre’s experience at a Flat Earth Convention. The conversations he relates range from the normal to the bizarre, highlighting how science-deniers aren’t all mentally ill, stupid, or brainwashed. Many of them live otherwise normal lives. This human element is one that McIntyre latches on. Talking to science-deniers as equals and as people, conversing with a genuine desire to understand their perspective and respecting their position becomes the best way to have any real effect on their beliefs and actions.

How to Talk to a Science-Denier is a thorough, philosophical, and thoughtful. Even though his Ph.D. is in philosophy, McIntyre writes like a sociologist—think of a more-academic and not quite as charismatic version of Malcolm Gladwell. The book is published by a MIT Press and is at about the level you’d expect from an academic publication. It sort of wavers between your typical lay-level, accessible style of writing and true academic treatise. It’s denser than Malcolm Gladwell but its hardly post-graduate philosophy. It’s a bit of a slow read as a result and while I enjoyed it, I think that if McIntyre had reworked this to a more popular-level style, it may have gained more traction. But academic publishing is McIntyre’s wheelhouse, so go with what you know, I guess.

Early on, he makes the case that both content rebuttal and technique rebuttal can be effective in countering science-deniers, if it is done in compassionate manner as a part of genuine conversation. Yelling out talking point and smug gotchas does nothing. Sincerely asking “oh, how do you account for…” actually forces the individual to consider a response. (Theologian sidenote: Jesus was super good at questions like this. ‘Whose face is on this coin?’ ‘Which of these was a neighbor?’)

One thing I wish How to Talk to a Science-Denier had covered more thoroughly is how to talk to a science-denier who themselves are science-experts. Science is a very broad field and experts in science are, by necessity, experts in only narrow, narrow slice of science and may be as ignorant as anyone else in other areas. Yet, having the title of “Doctor” often gives individuals carte blanche for opinions all over the place. COVID has seen a number of doctors promote disproven cures or doctors and nurses be strongly anti-vax. They may the minority, but those are the voices science-deniers lift up as saying “Look, here is a scientist and they agree.”

Overall, How to Talk to a Science-Denier isn’t a cure-all. But it might help you begin some conversations. It’s a not a magic incantation to make the other side see reason, but it just might help you see the other side as human—and understand their motives and reasons. And it might help them understand yours as well.

While interesting with lots of intriguing stories and anecdotes (Flat Earth conventions and visiting bleached coral in the Maldives being two examples), I'm not sure McIntyre really accomplished what he was going for here. In all of his documented conversations with science deniers, none of them changed their minds. The advice he offers - things like listen with empathy, don't lecture or insult - really apply to talking with anyone, not specifically science deniers. And in the age of Covid-19 and the insane anti-vax movement that is prolonging the pandemic and needlessly killing people, we REALLY need to figure this out.

As Lee McIntyre reflects in the book, this topic seems even more relevant now than it did prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. We have very effective vaccines that will help us mitigate the harms of COVID-19, yet a shocking proportion of people are hesitant to get vaccinated. A perhaps less-shocking proportion have decried public health measures, like mask mandates, designed to keep people safe. In How to Talk to a Science Denier, McIntyre tries to uncover why people deny science, how those beliefs are formed, and then what techniques will actually be effective in encouraging such people to change those beliefs. McIntyre is a philosophy of science professor, not a psychologist or a scientist himself. So he draws from a lot of references and experts in those fields, along with his anecdotal observations from talking to various flavours of science deniers.

I received an eARC of this book from NetGalley and the publisher in exchange for a review.

McIntyre wants to deliver good news: contrary to some of the prevailing wisdom, the science suggests that science deniers can actually be convinced by facts. He refers to a couple of articles, including one that I’ve used in my English classroom: “Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds” and explains that more recent work hasn’t reproduced the results reported on in these articles. In fact, the research seems to indicate that content rebuttal is effective—at least in online settings. McIntyre goes on to reassure us that if you aren’t an expert in the field in question, then technique rebuttal is also effective: point out, gently and compassionately, the flaws in reasoning that have resulted in the science denier forming these incoherent beliefs. These flaws are 5 in number: “cherrypicking evidence, belief in conspiracy theories, reliance on fake experts (and the denigration of real experts), committing logical errors, and setting impossible expectations for what science can achieve.” As McIntyre chronicles his conversations and explorations of various flavours of science denial, he briefly summarizes how these 5 flaws in reasoning show up within each flavour.

More broadly, this is a book about epistemology and the limits of scientific knowing, as well as the role of healthy debate in our society. McIntyre is keen to point out that a great deal of science denial ultimately rests in a distrust of science, of government, or of some combination of those authorities. This is important, because McIntyre wants to emphasize that most science deniers are not stupid or even necessarily ignorant people (although ignorance/lack of education can be a good starting point for breeding science denial). Rather, these are people who embrace the denial of science as an identity because it provides them comfort in a world that at times seems very random and harsh.

In this way, McIntyre builds up a thesis that he truly only comes to understand through experience. His first attempts to talk to science deniers in situ, at the 2018 International Flat Earth Conference, fumble and fizzle out because, he concludes, he didn’t listen enough. Each subsequent mission to reach out to deniers, then, builds on this experience and results in McIntyre trying to find more common ground and truly understand the nature of the denial in question. At several points, McIntyre cites Peter Boghassian and James Lindsay’s book How to Have Impossible Conversations. I kind of wanted to go take a shower when he did that, because I’ve heard very few good things about Boghassian and Lindsay, and I’ve witnessed firsthand the latter not living up, on Twitter, to the exhortation to really sit down and listen compassionately to people you disagree with. McIntyre seems like a nice and liberal enough guy, but it made me super uncomfortable that he cited those two so favourably. (And more generally, I wasn’t a huge fan of how he kept praising various sources’ books as “terribly important,” and other such adjectives.)

I am all for listening to people who disagree with me on science and seeking to understand their point of view. I have had conversations with vaccine-hesitant people in my life, and this is exactly what I tried to do—I asked them what their concerns were, and I tried to treat them with respect and acknowledge that it’s ok to be concerned and apprehensive about these things. In this sense, I am entirely in agreement with McIntyre (and perhaps, at least in the way he filters it through this book, Boghassian and Lindsay, ugh).

That being said, I do feel uncomfortable when this idea gets extended to conversations about society in general. McIntyre submits that some of the most recent research suggests not showing up to a debate is an unproductive way to combat denial. That made me think of Bill Nye agreeing to debate creationist Ken Ham, and how at the time I scoffed at the idea. Maybe I was wrong. But I also think we need to think carefully about where we draw the line at accepting such debates as valid events. Debating science is one thing, but I don’t want to debate the rights of any particular group of people. Don’t try to debate with me that Black people are human, and don’t try to tell me that, as a trans woman, I don’t or shouldn’t exist. In that sense, even as McIntyre lays the responsibility of communicating with science deniers on the shoulders of scientists, I feel uncomfortable with the possible analogy to be had here—that members of marginalized communities have the responsibility to reach out and communicate better with racists, transphobes, homophobes, etc.

To be clear, McIntyre isn’t saying that. He wisely side-steps that issue by explicitly focusing on science denial and only science denial. At one point, he brings up white supremacy but then rejects any firm comparison between white supremacy and science denial. To me, this signals that he understands there is a qualitative difference between two people disagreeing on a matter of science versus two people disagreeing about the humanity of others. Nevertheless, I do think that discussions about science denial must acknowledge their embedded context of a society that is increasingly suspicious of any form of intellectual discussion around social justice. Just see the backlash against critical race theory (a backlash which Lindsay, incidentally, champions, ugh) and how schools in the United States are “banning” the teaching of critical race theory despite the fact that it isn’t taught in high schools, because it’s a complex field of study usually reserved for grad school. I think it’s a mistake to ignore the fact that the people likely to engage in science denial are also likely to be in favour of “banning” critical race theory, because their flawed reasoning resonates with the 5 flaws McIntyre highlights here.

One element I did find lacking in How to Talk to a Science Denier was a deeper look at science denial within science itself. McIntyre brushes up against this topic in a few areas, such as when he has a conversation with a biologist friend who is, if not anti-GMO food then at least not pro-GMO. This is the kind of thing I’m talking about—the COVID-19 pandemic has shown us nurses and scientists coming out against vaccination, even though these people should be the ones who have the best understanding of vaccine science. But science is a very broad discipline; the general public seems to place an overabundance of trust that if you are a scientist then you know what you’re talking about when you opine on any science. I would have liked to see McIntyre interrogate this idea more thoroughly and examine, for example, scientists who deny climate change. Do they genuinely disbelieve, or are they sowing doubt because it funds their bottom line? This is, after all, one of the ideas McIntyre wants us to understand after reading the book: much science denial these days is political and corporate in its origins, the result of decades of doubt sown by tobacco and then oil companies. Scientists themselves are not immune from such corruption.

In the end, this book is far from a comprehensive guide to the world of science denial (how could it be?). But it’s definitely interesting, and I think for the most part, McIntyre meets the expectations he sets out at the beginning and in the very title of this book. If you are someone like me who is interested in having more fruitful conversations with people who deny or are wary of otherwise accepted scientific views, then this book might hold some answers for you. Yet I think McIntyre would agree that not even this book can be the magic bullet that fixes all our science denial problems. That will take concerted efforts in our institutions, from education (hello) to politics and beyond.

How to Talk to a Science Denier: Conversations with Flat Earthers, Climate Deniers and Others Who Defy Reason is a fascinating exploration of philosophy, in particular, epistemology and metaphysics, age-old science, history, politics and the phenomenon of fake news and the way in which they all intersect and interact with one another. Science denial can kill. So how can we change people’s minds? At a time when science is under attack, this question has never mattered more. If you met a science denier in person would you know what to say? Facts don’t convince people, so what does? After 20 years studying science denial from his desk, philosopher of science Lee McIntyre went on the road to talk to Flat Earthers, climate change deniers, and others, about their beliefs. Here, he teaches us how we can effectively argue with science deniers and why it is so important to do so. The rejection of scientific expertise has been one of the most consequential social trends of the 21st century and, for those of us who remain committed to the scientific method, it may also be the most frustrating.

After years of being bombarded with evidence (and often having their intelligence insulted), science deniers seem even more committed to alternative explanations of the world and the leaders who promise to undermine science-based policy. How did we get here and how can we make things better? Drawing on academic research and his own experience—including attending a Flat Earth convention— McIntyre will outline the common themes of science denial and offer tools and techniques for communicating the truth and values of science, emphasising that the best way to reach someone is through personal engagement, which fosters the possibility of building trust through empathy and respect. People are not convinced by facts; they are convinced by facts that are shared by people they trust. Dr Lee McIntyre shares what he learned from studying the ways that science deniers see the world, how we can use those insights to fight that worldview, and why a little bit of good faith goes a long way in communicating with others.

Dr Lee McIntyre, Research Fellow at the Center for Philosophy and History of Science at Boston University, challenges the claim that trying to convince a science denier is an exercise in futility. Indeed, the latest research shows that this is mistaken and that there are effective techniques that can be used to keep someone from becoming a science denier. These strategies can even help people overturn those mistaken beliefs once they are formed. The secret lies in recognizing that even empirical beliefs may be held for reasons that have nothing to do with evidence. McIntyre explains that the best way to convince someone, in this case, is not to berate them, but rather to engage them in an examination of the cognitive and normative reasons why they reject factual evidence in the first place. An exceptionally researched read from start to finish with plenty about how to approach and converse with science deniers and/or conspiracy theorists in all the most prominent areas of denial. A fascinating, informative and eminently readable guide to a thoroughly pervasive topic blighting the world today. Highly recommended.

As a science teacher who has to encounter science deniers all the time, this was quite an interesting read. It was a bit dense and wordy at times but informative and a good read.

Forthcoming from MIT Press, HOW TO TALK TO A SCIENCE DENIER by Lee McIntyre is subtitled "Conversations with Flat Earthers, Climate Deniers, and Others Who Defy Reason." McIntyre, a Research Fellow at Boston University, refers to recent studies like "Effective Strategies for Rebutting Science Denialism in Public Discussions" by Schmid and Betsch and the 2017 essay by Shermer on "How to Convince Someone when Facts Fail" and many, many more. Giving generous credit, McIntyre skillfully weaves copious research into his text, exploring in detail five common factors across science deniers: cherrypicking evidence; belief in conspiracy theories; reliance on fake experts; logic errors; and impossible expectations for what science can achieve. Echoing comments from Galef's The Scout Mindset, he points out, for example, that "scientists do not merely look for support for what they hope to be true; they design tests that can show whether their hypothesis might be false." He devotes an entire chapter to the Coronavirus which seems particularly relevant, given the amount of vaccine hesitancy which is currently being exhibited. McIntyre is so very passionate about this topic that he can sound preach-y at times, but he offers constructive advice. We all need to keep in mind his point that "one of the greatest weapons we have to fight back against science denial is to embrace uncertainty as a strength rather than a weakness of science. ... We need to teach people not just the facts of science but also its values, and how those values inform the processes by which science makes its discoveries."

A thorough exploration of the various ways hot topic controversies are discussed and dissected by the media and people in general. The book is well-researched, with tons of sources listed in the bibliography.. This is a bit of a dense read, but still a worthy examination.

I definitely had no expectations with this book and I ended up loving it, I believe in seeing is believing, and for the same reason as a student, the most important thing is always to question everything and learn, it's true that many of the current phenomena are explained based on theories that are not possible to verify and, it's still not sure how life evolved on earth, but if there is one thing I am sure of, it's the ability of many conspirators to believe that their point of view is correct. The title of this book caught my attention because certainly, the point of talking to people who don't believe in science is not to humiliate them but to understand why they came to the conclusion that science is a lie, even though there is too much research to support it.

This book has different takes on different themes; the theory of the flat earth, vaccines, and climate change, it was definitely a very interesting book and you can see how the author tries to make sense of the different positions.

Finally, I recommend this book to anyone interested, it has a topic discussed in different situations around the subject in question, so it is very entertaining.

My thanks to the author Lee McIntyre, MIT Press, and NetGalley for the opportunity to get this ARC for an unbiased review.

This book was not what I expected and was actually quite humorous in many parts BUT also absurd that there are people that believe these wild theories against science and how to respectfully speak to them. I myself know many people who are anti-vaxxers, COVID-19 deniers, anti-maskers, and or denying climate change. Some of this was eye-opening to think these kind of people exist in a technological age.

These are just some of the topics included in this book but also Flat Earthers, who believe there is a 1000ft dome in Antarctica protecting all the ice/water from falling off the Earth (seriously). There is also a chapter detailing what/who science deniers, and that these people can be in respected careers like teachers, doctors, nurses, scientists, etc.

A heavy read in the fact concerning how to talk to "science deniers," but also a light read from all the observations and humor throughout. Recommended.

Thanks to Netgalley, Lee McIntyre and MIT Press for an ARC in exchange for an honest review.

Available: 8/17/21

Lee McIntyre’s book gives us a blueprint to talk to science deniers. If we follow 5e tips in this book, perhaps we can restore sanity in this country and begin respecting each other again.

McIntyre provides easy to understand tips on how to try and reach science deniers. He has a 5 step framework that he introduces early on. He then applies this framework to Flat Earthers, anti vaxxers, GMO deniers, and most importantly, COVID-19 deniers. If you’ve done a lot of reading into why people believe in the unbelievable, a lot of this stuff will be very familiar. But McIntyre helped me give a name to some thoughts I’d had about the science deniers in my own life. That’s where the book was valuable to me.

The people who need to read this are those who want to reach friends and loved ones. Some of the other reviews of this book will make it clear how big the challenge is. Without even realizing it, the negative reviews for this book will employ at least one tactic in McIntyre’s framework. They’re not going to be brought around by reading this. Instead, McIntyre coaches the science believers to listen to and try to respectfully rebut some of the flawed logic used by science deniers. It’s unlikely to work on most of them, but this book gives us something else to try.

I recommend this book to all.

The ultimate premise is that talking with science deniers involves forging relationships, actually talking and listening, being respectful, and engaging in true conversations with people. I would have preferred to have seen more examples of these situations as guides as opposed to the background information and wordiness. But an interesting read.

This might be my favorite book of 2021. As someone who’s obsessed with the psychology/science/philosophy behind cults and conspiracy theory, every page of this book held my acute interest.

While most science denial and conspiracy are tied to conservatives (flat earth, COVID, 5G, climate change), I like how the author also unpacks liberal conspiracy theories (GMOs and until COVID, anti-vax).

He also gives realistic advice on how to have difficult conversations with difficult people as it relates to science denial.

I was actually sad when the book ended.

10/10 recommend this book.

This could be the very worst book that I have ever had to endure. Lee McIntyre is a global warming consensus zealot who attacks climate change skeptics (the number of actual deniers is really quite small) by trying to link them to people who believe in intelligent design (evolution deniers) and/or flat Earthers which is only guilt by association a form of McCarthyism. This attempted coupling is Mr. McIntyre's method for selling an environmental program that is at best flimsy. For example, as a climate change denier, I am personally aware of 4,000 scholarly scientific research papers that have all been published over the last five years in top-notch peer-reviewed journals that each "falsify" (Karl Poppers' standard) the anthropogenic global warming theory.
In an effort to demonstrate how trivial Mr. McIntyre's book is one need only examine his bibliography which is made up largely of newspaper and magazine articles all from left-wing sources.
Looking at McIntyre's body of work also shows his unserious research efforts. The books of his that I have read include his own works (Post-Truth) in which he tracks how intelligent design proponents and climate deniers draw from postmodernism to undermine public perceptions of evolution and climate change and several nonsense books by Washington Post reporter Chris Mooney.
In 2015 McIntyre wrote in the Price of Denialism that "True skepticism must be more than an ideological reflex; skepticism must be EARNED by a prudent and consistent disposition to be convinced only by evidence." (Emphasis in the original) Of course, McIntyre does not understand that a single replicable contrary finding according to Popper is enough to "falsify" any theory. Over 4,000 such findings in just five years are simply overwhelming! And yet McIntyre can not fathom why public belief in climate change is declining.
Mr. McIntyre also cites Elizabeth Kohut's article about facts not mattering but fails to realize that Kohut's credentials are at best sketchy and that she authored the March 12, 2018 article in National Geographic (There's No Scientific Basis For Race) which does not contain a single correct factual assertion. The scientific basis for race is today so extensive that any form of denial is perverse.
The bottom line is that How to Talk to a Science Denier is actually worth only MINUS five stars but Net Galley makes me award it one star. McIntyre's books are all complete loads of crap. To paraphrase H. L. Mencken -- Dealing with an ideologue like Lee McIntyre can be a very messy process.

This book is a wonderful diatribe if you consider science to be a religion you either believe in or don't.

On the other hand if you consider science in its historical context, where many scientific theories are eventually shown to be misleading, this book is as naive as they come.

Of course flat earthers don't conform to evidence and logic. Neither does this book.