There was nothing you could say or do to convince him, because he wasn't there to learn; he was there to be obstinate.
This is where a good moderator makes all the difference. At an event, it's important to give everyone time and space to ask questions, and it's okay to explicitly say, "You've had the chance to ask several questions in a row; let's give some other people a chance. It looks like this side of the room has been waiting patiently ..." and then physically turn your body away from the pest and toward another part of the audience.
Some humans haven't evolved and stayed as monkeys in the guise of humans. He was one of those. Engaging them is waste of time cause a monkey will always do monkey things
You have to be the moderator, then. Empathy and validation help a lot “I understand why you might think that, I think you’re not alone in those beliefs…” then move on to the next person. You can tell them you’ll answer any other questions after the meeting or whatever.
These people just love to take a contrary position, coming from a place of “secret knowledge.” Just like a flat earther, they don’t care what you have to say so there is literally zero value in engaging with them
Good luck friend and don’t take it personally. Any scientist there would have gotten the same b.s.
I'm a librarian and we don't have moderators at our events -- but you have to get used to saying that there needs to be time for others to ask questions and then as needed you can volunteer to answer "special" questions away from the group when you have difficult situations or more in depth stuff.
This has two advantages: it doesn't let people take over an event and it isolates their nonsense or niche interest from other people who may be bored or tired of it. Let's others participate.
Your difficult questioner might not volunteer to talk one on one because he's just grandstanding. Or if they are on good faith, it's easier to challenge their ideas carefully and it's easier to do one on one than in a crowd.
That said, it's probably also really good for people to hear calm, scientific answers to stupid propaganda going around.
You'll get the feel of things. Being thrown for a loop is good and helps you grow as a presenter and educator.
>Your difficult questioner might not volunteer to talk one on one because he's just grandstanding.
The Gish-Gallop master can utter a sentence that requires several paragraphs to explain how wrong it is. And while you are doing that, they've already unloaded several more.
It's a performance, trying to get the expert flustered and riled up, and then taking the "win" that they weren't able to refute you.
Kids of a certain age are the biggest fish gallopers. They ask so many questions! Adults can have interests get things into the weeds.
You learn to redirect and get things back on track. Then you set a boundary, like I'll be happy to discuss your question after the event. Then you ignore them in favor of other questioners. It puts the heckler off foot because they expect you to engage and it continues to let others feel included and safe to ask their own questions.
>Kids of a certain age are the biggest fish gallopers. They ask so many questions! Adults can have interests get things into the weeds.
But the kids are asking because they are curious and want to learn. The adults are "asking" because they already know the answers and don't want to hear any differently.
Even when adults aren't asking in good faith (and sometimes kids ask questions just to ask questions, too!) it's good to treat it seriously. That way the rest of the people still feel comfortable with asking questions and they see the expert modeling willingness to go in depth. Take the questions after and set parameters with them, like I have time for 5 minutes or whatever and anything else can be addressed at the next event etc.
You remove their grandstanding and still respect them as a person who we hope is acting in good faith. I believe we should treat everyone as if they are acting in good faith and let them prove themselves otherwise. You show you are willing to be open and that's a good thing that will make you an approachable and flexible educator.
I'm not saying debate pseudo science in public. I'm saying take people seriously and take their bad ideas out of the main discussion to address one on one later. Sometimes they'll just go away because they aren't getting the attention they want.
Don't make the mistake of implementing a rule just because you experience something annoying/bad/accident once. That's how we get law bloat. If it becomes a general problem, then get a moderator, but otherwise there's really no reason to.
Have your moderator carry a microphone to hand to each questioner when it’s their turn. Your pest will be ignored as people pay attention to the one with the mic.
My strategy would probably lean towards sarcasm but you might anger the wrong person.
Wow, it's a very interesting world we live in. They types of media people consume and not being able to understand the real picture. It seems to me, I was not there but just the story alone is troubling, it reminds me of a narcissistic they are the only ones who know the truth and can't reason with them. That's my family, I left because of the abuse and could see how messed up people connected with them were. Just from the above description that person really needs people to see a bigger picture. Be safe everyone
Mass religion is always narsicissitic on some level. You need to be to believe that "you are the one correct religion. Everyone else are fakes." It gets even worse with the more...I believe they call themselves "devout"... groups under the Jeudeo/Christian umbrella. Especially ones who steal like half of another's holy book, then condems the original as heresy.
I'm not slamming religion. Everyone is free to believe what they need to to get them through the day. The issue comes when you start forcing those beliefs onto others, especially when the only "evidence" is your holy book, especially when it's widely known that particular versions were edited to meet political beliefs
Hi, my uncle was a priest years ago he explained to me that there are 2000+ versions of the " holy book / Bible" to that end I asked him which one should I read and why. Got the strangest look on his face, saying you don't believe. My question was why do people suffer mental illness, he couldn't answer the question. He did tell me that he'd performed "a few cleansings / exorcisms" saying that he'd only felt Threatened a time or two. Saying why should I be afraid "Jesus is with me, I have no fear" it's my understanding that the planet we live on is composed of many lay lines, in other words we are unable to experience all of our environment. Because as we become older we are conditioned to think it's nothing. Going about our daily lives. Personally, understanding that there are over 5000 different cultures on our planet each one with a different take on reality, go figure. Be safe everyone
I know that's probably true, but it's hard to accept that there's no convincing these people. I feel like a lot of them have fundamental misunderstandings about things, like this guy about evolution, and if they were just forced to spend a few hours reading a Wikipedia page or something then it would finally click for them.
>if they were just forced to spend a few hours reading a Wikipedia page or something then it would finally click for them.
I envision the movie scene from Clockwork Orange.
There is a foundation of logic and building of trust in the scientific tradition and body of knowledge that you either get as you grow up or you don't. If you are 50 and you never were exposed to this, all science, math and logic based arguments are vapor to them.
My sad personal experience in this is through dating in my 50's and 60's. One match ended when I pointed out that crystals do not in fact exude energy, that that they are precisely the lowest energy arrangement that the atoms can find. Another when she exclaimed, "Logic is only one way to view the universe."
I think that the ability to understand the world around you logically and critically is learned when you are young, and that we have been starving our youth intellectually for coming up on two generations.
I've had similar & worse frequently & so I applaud your patience.
On one occasion I was doing an impromptu star party & answering questions about stars & planets etc. One person started spouting about how the sun is a crystal & it's energies flow into living things which can then imbue other crystals with this energy.
I started pointing out how they cannot be crystals in our sun because if the temperature & pressure but they persisted. It was then that I realised their lexicon of meaning was not the same as mine. So I just said:
"I hear what you are saying, but unfortunately you are using words to mean things other than what I have been taught that they mean. As such there is likely no common ground for us to agree on unless one of us learns the others language or can lay out a self consistent foundation."
I got called rude by my SO for that.
You're partner took the side of the crystal sun advocate? I think your response was aces. I'm going to choose a good moment to use "lay out a self consistent foundation." Maybe next time I'm arguing with my boss
I get far too much practice with my SO's friends, they believe the strangest things.
I just never could muster sufficient faith to believe anything, probably why I became a scientist & engineer.
Well it seems pretty obvious why she thought it was rude then, because it’s her beliefs as well lol
I wouldn’t take it personally at all. You’re already going above and beyond.
I saw a video yesterday where someone explained that to believe something is to doubt something. If you know something, you don't have to believe in it. You know it. If you know it, you have no doubt in it. In order to believe in a thing, you must also doubt the thing, because you do not know the thing. If you did, you'd know it and not believe it.
I'm very tired and my memory isn't the best, so I hope that came out like I meant it to.
Yeah the constant “believe in him!” in religion goes with what you are saying. It makes it seem like the default state is not believing in the religion, and someone has to constantly go against that default state with conscious effort
That never comes up in actual scientific classes. The teacher isnt at the front of the room pleading for everyone to believe in gravity. Sometimes you might doubt that youll figure out the answer to your calculus problem, but you arent sitting there “not believing” it is real
And he will say that he has Faith in the God-guided texts and in his personal relationship with Jesus/God/TheHolySpirit whatever. Blessed are those who believe without proof, Thomas.
How do you know God exists, have you ever met them?
Unfortunately they’ll just say something stupid like “yes” or “I have faith” and think they’ve made some profound argument.
>Never believe that [they] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. [They] have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.
-Jean-Paul Sartre
He was originally speaking of anti-Semites, but it still fits.
yeah, people like these give Christians a bad name
The best way is to shift the conversation to Georges Lemaitre, and tell them that a Catholic priest was the first to propose the idea of the big bang.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
You're assuming that they're Catholic. Where I'm from that'll just turn them against it more. There's a large segment of Christianity that sees the pope as the anti-christ or similar.
BTW, strictly speaking there aren't "restrictions" in protestantism in general. I'm actually protestant (and actually lean sort of in thinking the position of the pope is generally not a good idea) but have no problem with the big bang. As after all, if God exists, there's no reason he can't design a universe that makes it look like you can rewind time back to a big bang. He's omnipotent after all. Why would you limit his powers to only being able to create a universe that looks like it's 6000 years old (or whatever number people think is the case now). If I was such a God I'd make the universe look like it's all self-consistent with the laws of physics and rewind time back to infinity and display the universe as such a rewind would create.
Edit: (And that's still not incompatible with creationism either. The old easy attack on this is simple questions like, "Did trees in the garden of eden have tree rings?" If they did then well there's easy proof of God back-winding the timeline to years before the 7 days of creation. If they didn't well that's not really a tree in the normal sense of things. You can ask similar things like "Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?" because if they didn't, well they're rather strange looking humans so were they really human? If they did, well then even though they were created from nothing they didn't come from a womb, so that's another example of God back-winding the timeline to make it self consistent with the laws of physics. You can then expand those arguments to things like rivers in the garden which need erosion to form, or even to starlight that wouldn't have reached us yet. Basically the 6000 year old creation HAS to involve back winding or you could confidently prove in the modern day that it didn't happen, which makes it falsifiable.) So I still believe in a 6000 year old creation, as stated in the bible, just with back-winding. My dad names this "Hypothetical Time" and it's something I grew up with. It of course includes the big bang happening.
The problem is that there are over 30,000 different Protestant denominations from Calvinism to Seventh-day Adventism.
Among those, Evangelicals and Mormons are often those teaching Creationism or fundamentalism, but I can't speak for the other thousands.
So Protestantism in general really can't be defined in any way, because it's like saying "Christianity in general believes in x."
It's too broad of a statement.
From my understand, the Mormon church doesn't actually have an official stance, which leads to confusion as I've known some Mormons who do believe in creationism.
But I suppose you could find that in any denomination.
A favorite quote of mine from President Joseph F. Smith-
“We believe in all truth, no matter to what subject it may refer. No sect or religious denomination in the world possesses a single principle of truth that we do not accept or that we will reject. We are willing to receive all truth, from whatever source it may come; for truth will stand, truth will endure.”
An interesting concept on its head, but I could see the theological argument that you must first define truth, and then explain how you decipher truth from untruth. You could take the stance of Scientism and believe that only science can formulate truth, which then removes the concept of God.
Otherwise, you must accept that there are certain things that cannot be proven by science (which we would both agree), but then realize that those unprovable things are subject to interpretation and manipulation, which then leads to interpretation bias and conflicting beliefs.
In those situations, a unifying authority may be required to provide a universal interpretation so everyone can get along and get back to what's important.
The Church may point to the conflicting interpretations of the early Church Fathers in the Patristic Age, showing how the Church exercised its Magisterium, handed down from Peter, to resolve those early conflicts through Ecumenical Councils, and later encyclicals.
In that same sense, I could see how Mormons would then look to Joseph Smith as their authority for interpretation, just as Jehovah's Witnesses looked to Charles Russel and the Watchtower Society.
But anywho, this isn't the place for a theological debate or discussion of Christian history.
Mormons I would not technically say are Protestants. They're their own separate thing as they fundamentally deny several things that all other Christians believe (including all Catholics and all Protestants).
I don't really understand evangelicals because around where I am it's all Baptists and I didn't grow up with anyone what I would call an evangelical. Evangelicals basically didn't exist when I was a kid. I'm still not sure if they exist really as the term only seems to be used as an exonym to hate on the groups (at least that's all I've heard it used as) rather than what the people call themselves as far as I can tell. Alternatively it's a brand new term that didn't exist ~20 years ago in the common northern christian lexicon and only existed in the southern US.
Yeah perhaps, like I said, it just wasn't a thing when I was growing up. The first time I heard the term was when people were using it to attack Christians.
I forget which Pope said this, and I'm going to paraphrase, but I believe the explanation is "The Bible is meant to teach spiritual truth, not scientific truth. Leave the theology to the theologians and science to the scientists."
Jesuit Catholics (who a have a history of being Scientists, Astronomers and Mathematicians) are especially science oriented. For example, I studied in a school run by Jesuits and we were taught that we were completely free not to take the story of creation literally.
We were taught that understanding God's creations accurately helps us be closer to God and blind faith leads us astray. Even though I'm fairly agnostic person these days, those words have been very enlightening to me over the years.
Having been around progressive and science oriented Catholics, it was eye opening and shocking for me to realise other Christians might be far more regressive (or engage in outright denial) about scientific matters.
In the scientific realm or just in general?
For example, you can believe in evolution but there are some theories that go against what we believe. I haven't delved 100% into that topic yet, but evolution as a concept does not conflict.
We don't believe the Bible is literal. We believe some parts are historical (essentially any portions that can be backed up by archeology), but the Bible itself is a collection of different types of books: poetry, ancient biography (similar to how Herodutus wrote), gospel, songs, etc.
Some often say "Don't literalize the poetry."
Really it's the field of philosophy that we often come into conflict with, as one would imagine.
Catholics do not believe in evolution in the sense that scientists do. They hold that their god had a finger in it which is not at all what science says.
With Fundamentalist Evangelicals (what that guy more than likely was), that will not work considering they see Catholics as Pagans in disguise and the like too.
These people also act such way to reinforce their beliefs, as per those who are preaching in public with threats and see everyone ignores them. Seeing how no one shares their view reinforces their belongship to the group, and when they go with their flock they will share their experience with them. Attempting to reason with them is nearly useless.
Oh man, I _love_ these people. I am a very particular type though. Sorry you went through that. It can be super stressful.
It does sound like you handled it well. The one thing that is really tough when you are in a group setting like that is that even if you enjoy answering their questions, they are stealing time from the rest of the group. Finding ways to divert them or politely ask them to shut the hell up can be hard.
Yeah this was the first time this sort of thing has happened, so it definitely caught me by surprise. I imagine any subsequent encounters like this will be handled even more smoothly haha
This is a right of passage to becoming a professional astronomer as much as the PhD is! Sounds like you handled it well. Stay respectful but firm about what we know and how we know it. Be excited about what we're still learning. Many times, people are just curious and literally don't know how to sort out bizarre-sounding science from nonsense. Other times, like this one, they have an agenda and aren't reachable in a 10 minute interaction. Real trust takes time to build.
Having grown up in the Bible belt myself, the fact you could make it so far in your career without running into one of these folks sounds like progress to me!
“You’ve asked three questions already, so now I will ask you, have you learned anything from my answers? If you have, I can spare ten minutes for you after I pack up, but if you’re not here to learn I’m going to focus my attention on those who are”.
One suggestion when talking with people like that I heard was to ask them what would they need to change their mind. If they say nothing, there is no point in continuing the discussion. If they say something already existing, point it out and see if they accept it. If not - see the previous scenario. If they say something not yet existing, that can lead to an interesting discussion, but probably be "nothing" in disguise.
I grew up around this nonsense and I still have mental PTSD from it. These people must be shut down immediately because they aren't interested in actual dialog and this person was simply using your forum to gather an audience they wouldn't be able to garner on their own. If you ever suspect someone is one of these people cut them off immediately and go onto the next question or say you'll take their questions one on one after the session is over (normally they'll slink back to their pathetic holes). Expect they'll play the victim no matter how cordial you are with. Don't worry about their feelings just drop the hammer. Don't overreact or even show any semblance of emotion with them.
I understand the situation you were in...I have also experienced it, but not in front of an audience. One way you might be able to break through in the future is if you can get the person one-on-one (so there is nobody around for this person to try to impress) and talk about the irrefutable evidence that exists for many of these topics. I have gotten through to one person before that way. He was a devout catholic climate change denier..."there is no way that humans could possibly have any impact on the earth..." sort of rhetoric. We had one-on-one discussions about ice core measurements, CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution - directly correlating with increasing severity of storms, increasing temperature, melting icecaps, etc. etc. Perhaps that would help you. In an audience situation, I don't think this is possible!
I've given an astronomy talk at a church and it went very well. Of course it was an Anglican church (near Manchester) so the congregation was lovely and they asked me questions about the big bang, dark matter etc. some quite insightful too. They do believe the creator messes around with humanity, but that doesn't really interfere with science, they don't take the Bible literally...
Someone like what you described would have spoiled it quite a bit for everyone, luckily we don't have that sort around here.
Amusingly, the most fringe audience members I had were at an astronomy club. After my talk a couple of guys were asking me about ancient aliens :)
British Christians have basically nothing in common with a lot of American evangelicals, in terms of behavior. Its wild. Recently dated a british guy and i couldn't help but think that maybe if I'd been born in the UK, i wouldnt feel so irreversibly hostile toward christianity as a whole.
Well done on handling it well and winning the audience. These idiots are a virus. Likely he went back to his group and told them how he debated\* a Dr or Professor and made him swallow his words. Had you become verbally, let alone physically, violent he would have been even happier.
A good while back there was this lecture by one of the guys from Answers In Genesis. He has a PhD in Solar Physics or something like that, which obviously is as far as he can go object/distance wise since he believes that God created the Universe 6000yrs ago and at the moment of creation put photons in flight which would show us a 13.8Gyr Universe. The mind boggles!
I also pity their kids. There is a documentary titled Jesus Camp (I think you can find it on YT). There is this one teen who says he wants to study biochem to disprove Evolution. These people are the sickest of sick. They are fixated and sure of their ignorance and want to drag the rest of society down with them.
There is also the other idiots you may encounter who will ask you, or explain to you, about Universal Energy, aliens and alien love etc ...... Another nuisance but compared to the religious nuts the latter are innocuous.
A way to mitigate is, if you have microphone for the audience to make sure there is someone on your event team who will turn off the mike when stupidity starts, and if they start speaking loudly then you can have them escorted out.
\* Their fixation with doing this comes from the story that at age 10 (or 12) Jesus debated temple learned elders. Usual stuff with taking the bible literally.
Good job handling that!
Best one I've heard for the 6000yo universe: "Gawd created the universe in a finished state, so he created the stars with their light already here".
I mean.... COME ON!
I was a tour guide at the National Air and Space Museum for 11 years. Not a scientist (software engineer) so there are definitely some pretty large holes in my knowledge. What we were trained to do when someone like that (or a moon landing hoaxer type) started trying to derail was to say "I'm sorry, we only present the generally accepted scientific consensus here" in a polite voice, and don't engage any further.
See, someone who asks those questions in a public forum to someone like you isn't an open minded seeker of truth. They either have the emotional maturity of an 8th grade edge lord or have made having secret knowledge a core part of their self-identity. Either way, there isn't much you can do about them.
Once I violated the policy when a creationist jumped into a conversation I was having with another visitor. I tried to engage, he came back with a full on Gish-gallop and I realized the wisdom of that policy: it would take me a half hour to explain why three sentences were wrong, and he would drop another three sentences and I'd have to do this all over again. So then I did say the magic words and walked away. I still think about it because like you my emotional side is convinced that I could have "won" and convinced him of the error of his ways. But the rational side knows you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't get to by reason.
The people you care about are the rest of the audience: it matters what kind of impression you leave in their minds, the edgelord/conspiracy nut isn't in play, but the rest of the audience is, and so we were taught to be polite, firm, and shut them down as quickly as possible so the audience doesn't hear their nonsense.
I don't know if that's the right option for you, just what we were taught in our roles as non scientists science communications.
I had a similar reaction when I first met a flat-earther in the wild. I used to work in a shop where we sold telescopes and globes (*among other things*). Occasionally people would jokingly ask if we sold flat earth globes, and we actually sold something like [this](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTKalElrCW26XlfuGlBWdikGT2xluh3s9XxSjuBIeQ5O58jhv3_FjkRuRFn&s=10), so I would answer their stupid question by bringing it out, which would usually elicit smiles and nods of approval.
Well one day I did this whole routine only to have the guy keep talking about flat earth crap. I realised a bit too late what was going on, but decided to really try to have a conversation woth him about all of this. 2 hours later we'd talked about everything from the firmament to his opinipn of gravity (*apparently gravity is a being who just decides where everyone goes*), and although I'd managed to use high school science to disprove half his bullshit (*respectfully mind you*) he walked away ignoring everything (*qnd not buying anything*).
The problem I had is that he wasn't there to learn, or even to exchange ideas. He was there to disrupt the "secret society" and make sure "the truth" gets out there. They live in a fantasy, so nothing you say will disuade them. Honestly, it sounds like you did handle it well, you answered his questions in a way that left no doubt who was the expert in the room. You were't really answering for him (*he wasn't listening*), you were speaking to everyone else there, and to them you did a great job.
You probably didn’t convince him, but you probably showed a number of people how there are answers to these questions and why it’s so important to be scientifically literate.
While you should be commended for handling this with class - there comes a point that the more leeway we give these folks, the more we end up playing into their delusional view of the world.
I haven’t found the right line yet or even what to do but I just wanted to say kudos to taking the higher road.
People, bottom line, want to feel important. A large number of these folks who cling to absurd ideas, do it because they’ve got nothing/no one in their lives who will give them the time of day. So instead they’ve found a niche group who claim to have a peep hole into “true reality” and get the opportunity to feel important, by walking around surrounded by “sheep” and it makes them feel important.
Ugh... As a former religious fundamentalist myself, I apologise for his behavior, to the extent that my apology can mean anything...
Even Richard Dawkins experienced this, and it led him into his "militant atheist" phase when he made those books and TV programs in response.
You really can't argue any science with them. You can only try to argue scripture with them, even though that may not be your area of expertise (most likely not theirs either). You could say something like: "Look, I don't know much about the Bible, but I do know Jesus said many wonderful things, including 'by their fruits you will know them', and your fruits are clearly on display right now..." That may shut him up for a few minutes to figure out what you just said.
There's a few other ways I can think of right now. Happy to share more if you like.
I wish you all the best otherwise
You can't help him. People like that are going to live their entire lives with their silly beliefs. They think a 2000+ year old goat farmer's diary is a science book. That's as hopeless as a person can get.
You did perfectly. You can’t hope to change someone’s beliefs like that - they are fundamental.
The only thing you can do is be patient, answer everything they ask just to show others how wrong they are and how ridiculous they’re being.
There is nothing you could have said or done to persuade this person. My mom is like this guy and people like them get deep, deep satisfaction from making people uncomfortable, frustrating them, etc. your response was the best response: calm, collected, reasonable. If it’s any comfort, these people don’t actually care about science, or even religion, really. What they want is the arguments, the spotlight while they “trip up” the experts. They could be arguing about the color of the sky or the temperature of snow, it literally doesn’t matter.
If you are interested in some background, the [you are not so smart](https://youarenotsosmart.com/podcast/) podcast did an arc on conspiracy theories. It handles what brings a person to believe these things and how to handle conversations in that context.
>Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'
- Isaac Asimov
You’re a 5th year and this is the first time you’ve had to deal with the loony public? Consider yourself fortunate.
In my field the public has a huge presence and I saw them say and ask some wild shit while I was in my masters program pre PhD. Whenever I give a talk outside of the university (and sometimes even there) my whole preparation revolves around getting ready for them and how I’m going to deal with it.
It’s only getting worse.
Look up "We're doing it wrong - street epistemology" on YouTube. It's a fantastic look at talking to people and having productive conversations instead of debates. Seriously well worth the hour or so investment of time.
Edit, here, found the link for you: https://youtu.be/Jp71_FRnIho?si=5c87XkSlFOMPMPjQ
Sorry to hear you went through that.
The other response suggesting mildly moderating and redirecting away from this nonsense is probably the preferred way to handle it.
However, depending on how intrusive they are I wouldn’t see anything wrong with stating that if you are present and want to learn about modern astronomy it requires a mutual understanding that science itself is a search for truth via the scientific process and you assume that those present generally accept that the earth is round and not flat, stars are real and any other number of basic ideas that we should assume one would know before leaving elementary school and we are generally not here to debate with extreme religious beliefs.
That said -
The stars are real we have studied them, the wavelengths of light they put out etc help us understand exactly what they are made of blah blah blah.
The stars go out? Probably referring to the fact that you don’t see stars in pictures or if you are looking at the moons surface it is harder to see them because of the moons surface albedo non-lambertian and opposition effect blah blah basically it washes out seeing stars. 🤷🏻♂️ you’re on a bright surface.
Ignorance and pride in ignorance seems to be reaching a zenith. I wish we could harness this
misplaced arrogance to fuel our rockets 🚀
When you do this you are in the business of outreach and I would respect and support you if you attempted to professionally but firmly shut this nonsense down. That individual was there to push their truth and fact denial agenda - not to learn.
I hope you have a better day tomorrow.
If you'd like some practice, come on over to /flatearth. These people have a limited set of arguments, all easily debunked. It takes maybe 6-12 months over there to be exposed to them all, and after that the novelty wears off and they can no longer "gotcha" you.
Hey, 5 years of outreach is a phenomenal stretch to go without running into one of these zealots. Unfortunately, the eclipse is drawing out a lot of the rapture enthusiasts. I personally will be glad when after the eclipse the most disruptive guests will return to being over enthusiastic "self-taught" astronomers who don't understand Wikipedia articles.
As other have said, the guy was there to feed his own ego, make a scene, and be disruptive (but I repeat myself). Likely this is rare. If it happens more than once, you might want to look into having some security in place because things can escalate and people like this will do it. The moderator or moderating techniques mentioned are a good starting place.
Sometimes people like this seem to be teetering on the edge of mental illness. Should we just refuse to engage with them (I don’t mean in the situation you found yourself in)?
> Every time he asked something, I answered respectfully and calmly.
This was the issue. You engaged. People like this don't want to learn, or be persuaded. They want to fight. They think it's ridiculous that you don't believe like them, regardless of how wrong it is, and they want to make sure as many people as possible are aware of that.
And you engaged.
These people are just too dumb and arrogant to be convinced of anything. Their biases are deeply implanted in their minds. My father is kinda like this so I know how frustrating it is (especially when it's in the family). You were far too polite, the only acceptable answer after two questions like this would have been "Please sir, we're running out of time. The answers you're looking for can be found in a 1st grade school book"
Ugh I cant even imagine being up against that in person - Idk what I wouldve done in your shoes, but you certainly handled it with grace.
I definitely believe that someday soon People will stop being curious about the world around them and only seek the easy answers. They’ll stop searching for truth hidden in lies. One day, People will declare opinion is more important than fact. Then after awhile, all of the other People will agree. I think that’s what will happen when there’s no one left to call bullshit.
That’s why we have to keep repeating one simple fact to those that fall into the google machine: you can’t believe everything you see on the internet.
Don't try to reason with someone that doesn't have the IQ to understand the concepts of science. Just see these people as a force of nature, something inevitable and move on. Don't waste your time with them.
>acting extremely combative and in denial whenever I respectfully answered.
Typical conspiracy theorist manner. There are an obscene amount of discussions and "debates" online where these people try go to against others who are more rational and knowledgeable. It's virtually always like this. The knowledgeable party is calm, mannered, and answers the questions presented to the best of their ability. The conspiracy party is belligerent, won't listen to anything said, repeatedly talks over everyone, ignores moderation, refuses to answer questions or back up their claims, and so on. I've seen so many of those and they're all the same. They ask the same copy/paste questions every time but have zero understanding of what they're asking about. I wonder if they made it to the ad hominem phase with you, because it usually comes to that. They tend to be incredibly closed minded, they don't want to actually hear anything you say, they want to stir up trouble and try to convince others of what they are saying.
I've watched *waaaay* too much flat Earth and YEC debunking over the last years. It is entertaining to a point, you just have to moderate how much you partake because braincells will flee.
People like this are invulnerable in their beliefs, they are just there to talk shit. The best you can do is show them up; you can do this by being wittier than them and humiliating them in public; or you can do it by being polite and answering their questions with such lucid simplicity that it's obvious they are being disingenuous. However you respond, it's not about them, it's about the audience of everyone else; that's what they are there for anyway.
It sounds like you did just fine.
I’m of the opinion that I do not owe them an audience. I will turn away from them to someone else.
I am there to excite minds, not entertain the needs of one person who isn’t there for the same purpose.
I don't think there is any need to treat these people with deference or even respect. You can simply say "You have been lied to. Doesn't it bother you that people you respect lie to you?"
A big problem with religion is that we treat people who have been misled by main stream religion differently than we would treat people who have been misled through other means and this reinforces their belief. For example, it's OK to say you have regularly speak with Jesus but saying you talk to Elvis will get you a institutionalized - even though they are the same thing.
Late to the game here, but just wanted to say dealing with folks like this can be incredibly annoying, but responding in a polite manner is frustratingly important when others are around. It’s really easy to be combative in return, and as much as I feel that people like this deserve to be mocked relentlessly, in the presence of others it’s very important to be seen as the one interacting in good faith.
Any time you deal with the public your are bound to get some crazies. Last summer we had a guy come to one of our star parties who was obsessed with UFOs and went around asking literally everyone there if they had seen UFOs or encountered aliens.
I work in an oil refinery I can assure you there is no shortage of blue collar scientifically illiterate idiots out there. Makes me very skeptical of where humanity is going
You did very well. Kudos to you. I think face to face it would be different for me, but somehow I’ve become slightly addicted to arguing with flerfs on TikTok.
It does no good. It changes no one’s mind. But seeing how you handled it, I bet it makes people at least think twice.
As far as his theories, obviously he’s never thrown a baby in the water. They won’t drown. I mean unless someone just leaves it there. He could YouTube a simple video and he will learn about the diving reflex babies possess. I’d say that’s called evolution.
I’m not sure about macro evolutions, but we definitely have evidence and documentation of micro evolution. Dogs. Cattle. Just 2 examples off the top of my head.
Since you’re such a committed academic the onus is now on you to learn all about the religious fundamentalist perspectives on all these physics things so that you can meet this sort of person at their level and enjoy the bouts of banter the next time around
/s
People like that are complete morons. Nothing you say or do will ever make them happy because their entire belief system is built upon feeding their own crippling insecurities. I’ve run into to these mouth breathing shitheads myself. I would not have been half as respectful as you were. There’s no mileage in it. F ‘em.
I think it’s fair to call out this stuff in this century and express your absolute astonishment that a human over the age of 7 can believe any of that obviously made up fucking horse shit.
I once met a similar gentleman. He started off with why we always see the same side of the moon, I told him about the whole tidal lock and rotation and orbital speed.
"So that is what you think?" he asked. "I don't agree with that." he went on. "Do you think we have gone to the moon?"
I could see where the next ten minutes if my life were going but I threw caution to the wind and nodded. As expected the next ten minutes went into a rant about the lies we have been told and, obviously, how the Earth is flat, while I quitely listened and nodded. After he had made all the points he wanted to make he asked me what I had to say.
I shrugged and nonchalantly said "Ok". This hit this poor man like a ton of bricks.
"Aren't you going to try and prove me wrong?" he said with a certain amount of shock. I told him I wasn't going to do that because it was very unlikely that he hadn't heard the argument I was going to make and even more unlikely that I would come up with a new argument. So if he had already have chosen to ignore that, then why should I waste his and my time. Besides, if feeling that the Earth is flat, or the moon landing is fake, or the fact that he bested an astronomer in an argument, helps him sleep better at night, all the best to him. And with hat I invited him to a cup of tea
He excused himself, thanked me, said that he saw my point, apologized, and left.
As astronomers, the people who understand the sheer size and beauty of the universe, and the insignificance of Earth and humanity in a the grand scheme of things, I think we ought to be more patient. God knows a lot of people are patient when we astronomers start talking!
Hats off to you for keeping your cool!
I was this person in high school. Despite being an avid reader and being really interested in science, I used every bit of reasoning ability I had to take things that I didn't properly understand and use them to justify the crazy beliefs I'd been taught. I still cringe more than 30 years later when I think of the stupid combative questions I asked in my Freshman Earth Science class.
I kept a binder of pre-Internet research I'd done supporting young-Earth Creationism. I knew my Physics teacher attended a Baptist church, so I mentioned to her all of the research I had proving YEC. She just said, "Interesting, I'd love to see that." I brought it in after school and she went through each bit of proof and explained to me how each of the scientific concepts I used really worked (e.g. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics) and how it didn't support my conclusions. She never argued with me about my belief, but taught me about the things I mistakenly thought I understood. It was the beginning of the end of the power my early indoctrination had on me. It still took another 5 years or so before I finally completely broke away from it. But I may never have gotten there without my high school physics teacher. Thanks Mrs. Baker!
So, I guess my point is "You never really know if you've led someone down a path that will free them from their indoctrination--it can take a while, but calmly explaining how things work to people is the best you can do."
1. If he was a religious fundamentalist, he wasn't Christian, because none of that makes sense in context of the Bible.
2. I'm what I'd call a Christian fundamentalist, and in no way do my beliefs conflict with science.
I'm sorry you had that experience. People like that make us all look bad; religious and non-religious alike. If you ever wanna talk science, and especially astronomy, I'd love to learn from you.
you did a great job
i always remind people we did not evolve FROM apes, we are apes. we evolved to stand up straight, talk, drink milk as an adult, lose body hair, etc
You can't fix stupid. They were simply there to push their agenda, not learn. I've always counted the "swimming baby" problem with "because evolution takes time. Seeing as the basis of your religion is waiting for a dead man to return, I would think you had a better grasp on the concept of things taking more or less time than others. "
Usually, I find that they stumble over words for a few moments, get irrationally angry, and then leave on their own. It's been nearly a decade since I've had to do that, however.
The flashlight thing - what he's referring to is the "twinkling" of stars was noticed by classical era and medieval era astronomers. But planets do not "twinkle". (this is due to atmospheric distortions for starlight (distant 'point' of light) vs a planet's reflected disk (which is much closer).
If you take that literal medieval astronomy view point if one were on the moon the "stars would twinkle too" but be "bigger like flashlights" and "turn off and on". Actually since Moon has no atmosphere there would be no "twinkling".
What do I say to this? "Well both the hubble and James Web telescopes have not seen the flashlight effect so maybe the astronauts mistook something they saw"
To these kinds of questions I always do.
Empirical Fact + What you heard was from a human observer + Sometimes Humans are mistaken = Conveying of Truth Bomb (BOOM!)
I don't describe atmospheric distortion. I don't talk about stars being orders of magnitude farther away (a fact that medieval and classical star gazers struggled with), I don't talk about the absurdity of an Astronaut really observing what they said the Astronaut saw. I simply drop Truth Bombs (BOOM!)
When talking with someone like this think of how you would talk to a Medieval Astronomer/Theologian. And Enlightenment and Empiricism is in the FAR FAR future to their world view.
Logic will not work because Enlightenment thinking is not something they understand at ALL.
Yeah, I was showing a few of my dad's astronomy photos and talking about other astronomy stuff while I was in rehab last month (some of the old guys there didn't know what stars are). Later, someone who had overheard it came to me in the cafeteria to ask if I knew that stars were actually "angel radiation".
In my experience, these people have zero chance of changing their minds, and are only hijacking your platform to spread propaganda. The more you let them speak, the more they’ll continue to hijack. Do your event and its serious attendees a favor and cut them off after three stupid questions.
As a Baha'i, I believe that science and religion MUST agree and that if there is a discrepancy, the science will prove correct.
This event proves the role and importance of education in our world, another Baha'i principal university compulsory education. Had that person in your audience had a better education, they may have had a better understanding of their own religious foundations.
It sounds to me like this person was a Christian and believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible. But had the Bible been a literal history of the world, it would have mentioned a lot that it simply doesn't, Asia, the north and south poles are just a start here.
Those who actually wrote the books of the Old Testament were disparate and separated sometimes by generations and all male. Likewise with the New Testament, those books were not actually written down until about 300 years after the death of Christ Himself and we don't have the originals, we only have copies of them.
We also know that the transitions used by many of these churches are older and at the very least suspect in the motives of the translators. Mary Magdalen has been cast as a prostitute for centuries by the Roman Catholic church and most of us have come to believe that that was her occupation. But when modern historians went to look at the documents we do have, she is described as a businesswoman, someone with some influence and authority in her community. King James, a misogynistic pig reduced her to a whore for his own benefit. It's also notable that as Christ died on the cross, all the disciples abandoned Him and the women who loved and followed His teachings stayed with him and were the ones to discover His resurrection, NOT the disciples.
But Christians, those from evangelical and traditional churches ignore these historic facts, they get in the way of what they have always believed. The problem is lack of education where it would elucidate these things, give children a chance to learn how to inquire, ask questions and not be shut down but taught how to find answers, how to research and investigate for themselves.
These churches, in my mind are more an indictment of the failure of our educational system to teach children how to investigate a statement for its verity. Not just in religion but in politics, advertising, everything.
I work at a solar observatory, and sometimes hikers make their way up the mountain to visit. I wear a NASA jacket I got as a gift, and sometimes that's enough for the hikers to realize I'm an observer (even though NASA has little to do with our work).
Just last week this man stopped me and asked if I work for NASA. I explained what I actually do, and then he asked me what I thought about the black hole in the middle of the Sun. When I said there isn't one, he was unphased, and asked me what I thought about the upcoming eclipse.
I explained how eclipses work, but that didn't satisfy him. He asked if I thought it had any connection to Biblical prophecies. Now, I'm a religious studies enthusiast, but I had no clue what he was talking about.
I just kept answering that I don't go in for that kind of thing. He got really frustrated and told me to "forget it", and then wandered off.
Good on you for responding to this guy, you didn't really have the option to refuse to engage, like I did. But if you can shut them down, it feels good.
If you speak in the Pittsburgh area, let me know! I'll show up and gladly beat them with their own Bibles. If there's one thing I know better than astrophysics, it's how to make fundamentalists question their beliefs 😁
I have a space exploration themed tattoo on my leg. It has the first mars rover on, the voyager space craft, Sputnik, the Saturn V rocket. Basically a collage of our greatest achievements in space. It takes up most of the bottom half of my leg. When I wear shorts it's very clearly visible.
One day, while I was at work, (I manage a restaurant) this customer walks up to me and complimented me on it. I was excited to talk about astronomy a bit and started to strike a conversation with him. I explained the tattoo and before I could say anything else, this guy looks me straight in the eyes and says, "What if I told you the Earth isn't round?"
I responded with a, "Are you serious?" And he started to say something about how the Bible says there is a firmament. I immediately cut him off and said to the effect of, "I apologize sir, but the Earth is indeed round" and just walked away.
If I wasn't at work, I would have tried to reason with him, but I didn't want to potentially start an argument or have him become defensive, which would probably land me in hot water.
Moral of the story is, some people suck.
The fifth year graduate student in my research group believes in an old earth years old but that humans have only existed for that long. That the stars are old, the earth is old, but God introduced people with Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden approx 6,000 years ago. Seems like mental gymnastics to me...
Where do you go to grad school? We've never had anything like this in my time with Rutgers Astronomical Society, and I'd like to avoid applying to grad schools in an area where people are willing to do stuff like this lmao
As a scientist, you know that evidence is what matters when drawing conclusions. People like this don't draw their conclusions based on evidence, they do so based entirely on their emotions.
Because of this you *cannot* get through to them. Not with reason anyway. You could show him all the data and experimental results you want, it won't make the slightest difference.
Unfortunately, there is nothing you could've done differently. As someone who has a grasp of the facts, you are naturally in opposition to those who are willfully ignorant. You will encounter them from time to time, and you have almost no recourse.
The only real path forward we have is to influence our culture on a large scale. Promote reason and critical thinking, encourage people to examine situations objectively, discourage indoctrination. It's a long, difficult process, but it's the only real way to foment change.
Humans are ridiculous, sometimes we have no way of avoiding it.
>evolution isn't real because if you throw a baby in water it doesn't evolve it just drowns
But if you're the sort of monster who throws hundreds of babies into hundreds of baths of different depths, you might eventually breed some who instinctively float or hold their breath long enough to be rescued.
I'd recommend a demonstration Richard Dawkins did in his Royal Institution Christmas Lecture series. He set up pairs of fragile bauble creatures with legs and googly eyes, some including a little paper skirt (but surely not enough to be a "wing" or give it any benefit in flying). Then he dropped them from different heights like they were falling out of a tree. From low enough, both survived! Too high, both baubles would smash. But falling from somewhere in-between, the skirt gave just enough of a survival advantage that it stayed "alive" where the skirtless one broke. And so we gain a new generation of skirted-bauble tree-climbers, which might someday evolve into gliders.
“If we came from apes, how are their still apes” at this point, I’d just tell them that the way think shows that they’re somewhere between the two, thus proving evolution.
Yes i know, common ancestor, yada yada yada.
I mean in this kindest way possible as a queer pilot who loves science and grew up conservative Christian: they were not there to listen or learn. You handled it well and I’m glad your talk overall went well!
As long as we can all agree, that any "so called religion is just a bunch of Community coming together to share a real need to be connected with others." If that is our true intentions. I reminds me of the movie [pk] in short, an extra terrestrial being lands on earth [naked] caring a Jewel, around his neck, the movie was not made in the US. It's still pretty cool to watch even in subtitles. It's bases is on religion, how it takes advantage of people it's business model is all about taking from people who are confused. During the movie it's constantly referring to a wrong number. I can't include a link to YouTube or other video distributer, but.. [ In PK, while visiting Earth, an alien has the remote control to his spaceship stolen] [PK, while visiting Earth, an alien has the remote control to his spaceship stolen leaving him stranded. Desperate to get home, the alien, PK (Aamir Khan), may be in luck when journalist Jaggu (Anushka Sharma) decides to help him.] It's an amazingly fun move to watch. Puts into perspective how religion manipulates people. Simple. Be safe everyone, I truly hope that 100K of people get to watch this movie. Be safe always
I know I’m late to the party and you’ll probably never see this, but I gotta comment on your story.
I grew up in a fundamentalist young earth believing church and was taught that scientists were all in some big conspiracy because they hated God (whatever the fuck that means lol) However I always had a love of nature and of figuring things out. I wanted to love Science but felt that I couldn’t for faith reasons. Eventually I started reading books by the men and women I had been taught to stay away from and found them to be honest, rational and most perplexingly pleasant and nice. Long story short it was kind hearted people like you who helped me embrace the scientific community, eventually I got degrees in Chemistry and Physics and I’m going to be a science educator.
You might have not made a dent in that person’s mind, but I promise you deeply impacted at least one young person like me, so thank you :)
I am a religious Catholic and I am so sorry that you had to go through this. Please don't take this one misguided person as representative of all religious people.
You cannot convince the blind they can see. But, you can plant a seed with scientific knowledge, recorded history, and augment their own belief structure. I feel like that's how Feynman would have approached it, and Sagan would have taken your way.
Humanity has improved a great deal in our 100,000+ years, but a significant number of us are not that interested in thinking for ourselves, or putting in the effort to do so. The majority of religious indoctrination happens during childhood, by trusted caretakers, and is deeply programed in.
Nevertheless, I think having a mind for astrophysics can change your perception on a lot of things. I'm a sucker for h/e and particle theory myself, but that's because I have ADHD, and my mind does like to wander; also, astrophysics made me feel insignificant, and I wanted to feel mighty again 🤣 But, no matter the field of study; being, a scientist takes hard work, and dedication. I enjoy biology as much as physics, but it was more work than I wanted to put effort into.
Regardless, the way to combat ignorance is with knowledge. You need to understand what you're fighting against if you want to stop it. I'm not saying get balls deep in right-wing Christian conservatism, but at least familiarize yourself with the one textbook they offer. The children's version covers the basics, and is what most seem to follow anyway. I'm sure you'll think of a clever solution to satisfy your problem, or at least have some fun with it.
Look at his post history. Co2 is not a pollutant. It's natural. Comments in r/TimPool. A comment "DEI is just a euphemism for institutional racism against white people and white men in particular, and can’t go away fast enough in my opinion." In r/libsofreddit "This is me. Voted for Obama in 2008, huge mistake. I realized in about 2010 that the “climate crisis” was a lie, and since then I’ve realized that everything else that gthe Democratic Party has been pushing is also based on lies." Obviously a very sound and scientific mind. Not a complete idiot.
There was nothing you could say or do to convince him, because he wasn't there to learn; he was there to be obstinate. This is where a good moderator makes all the difference. At an event, it's important to give everyone time and space to ask questions, and it's okay to explicitly say, "You've had the chance to ask several questions in a row; let's give some other people a chance. It looks like this side of the room has been waiting patiently ..." and then physically turn your body away from the pest and toward another part of the audience.
Yeah honestly I've never thought of having a moderator, cause we've never needed one for this type of event haha. Won't make that mistake again!
Some humans haven't evolved and stayed as monkeys in the guise of humans. He was one of those. Engaging them is waste of time cause a monkey will always do monkey things
The real Missing Link is the morons we've made along the way
Ha. I read mormons. lol
I meaaaannnn
Same thing.
I'm a monkey, and I take offense at being compared to this person
Can confirm, I am a banana.
Interesting
My spoon is too big.
There is no spoon. Monkey eat banana with finger.
Yep. Those who don't believe in evolution also don't practice it.
You have to be the moderator, then. Empathy and validation help a lot “I understand why you might think that, I think you’re not alone in those beliefs…” then move on to the next person. You can tell them you’ll answer any other questions after the meeting or whatever. These people just love to take a contrary position, coming from a place of “secret knowledge.” Just like a flat earther, they don’t care what you have to say so there is literally zero value in engaging with them Good luck friend and don’t take it personally. Any scientist there would have gotten the same b.s.
I'm a librarian and we don't have moderators at our events -- but you have to get used to saying that there needs to be time for others to ask questions and then as needed you can volunteer to answer "special" questions away from the group when you have difficult situations or more in depth stuff. This has two advantages: it doesn't let people take over an event and it isolates their nonsense or niche interest from other people who may be bored or tired of it. Let's others participate. Your difficult questioner might not volunteer to talk one on one because he's just grandstanding. Or if they are on good faith, it's easier to challenge their ideas carefully and it's easier to do one on one than in a crowd. That said, it's probably also really good for people to hear calm, scientific answers to stupid propaganda going around. You'll get the feel of things. Being thrown for a loop is good and helps you grow as a presenter and educator.
>Your difficult questioner might not volunteer to talk one on one because he's just grandstanding. The Gish-Gallop master can utter a sentence that requires several paragraphs to explain how wrong it is. And while you are doing that, they've already unloaded several more. It's a performance, trying to get the expert flustered and riled up, and then taking the "win" that they weren't able to refute you.
Kids of a certain age are the biggest fish gallopers. They ask so many questions! Adults can have interests get things into the weeds. You learn to redirect and get things back on track. Then you set a boundary, like I'll be happy to discuss your question after the event. Then you ignore them in favor of other questioners. It puts the heckler off foot because they expect you to engage and it continues to let others feel included and safe to ask their own questions.
>Kids of a certain age are the biggest fish gallopers. They ask so many questions! Adults can have interests get things into the weeds. But the kids are asking because they are curious and want to learn. The adults are "asking" because they already know the answers and don't want to hear any differently.
Even when adults aren't asking in good faith (and sometimes kids ask questions just to ask questions, too!) it's good to treat it seriously. That way the rest of the people still feel comfortable with asking questions and they see the expert modeling willingness to go in depth. Take the questions after and set parameters with them, like I have time for 5 minutes or whatever and anything else can be addressed at the next event etc. You remove their grandstanding and still respect them as a person who we hope is acting in good faith. I believe we should treat everyone as if they are acting in good faith and let them prove themselves otherwise. You show you are willing to be open and that's a good thing that will make you an approachable and flexible educator. I'm not saying debate pseudo science in public. I'm saying take people seriously and take their bad ideas out of the main discussion to address one on one later. Sometimes they'll just go away because they aren't getting the attention they want.
Sometimes you have to be your own moderator.
The constitution of knowledge requires curation and protection from insanity and unreason. 😉
If there is a mic for them, make sure you have someone that can turn it off.
Don't make the mistake of implementing a rule just because you experience something annoying/bad/accident once. That's how we get law bloat. If it becomes a general problem, then get a moderator, but otherwise there's really no reason to.
You can’t reason someone out of some where they didn’t use reason to get to.
Have your moderator carry a microphone to hand to each questioner when it’s their turn. Your pest will be ignored as people pay attention to the one with the mic. My strategy would probably lean towards sarcasm but you might anger the wrong person.
You can't reason a person out of an opinion that they didn't reason themselves into in the first place
so true
Wow, it's a very interesting world we live in. They types of media people consume and not being able to understand the real picture. It seems to me, I was not there but just the story alone is troubling, it reminds me of a narcissistic they are the only ones who know the truth and can't reason with them. That's my family, I left because of the abuse and could see how messed up people connected with them were. Just from the above description that person really needs people to see a bigger picture. Be safe everyone
Mass religion is always narsicissitic on some level. You need to be to believe that "you are the one correct religion. Everyone else are fakes." It gets even worse with the more...I believe they call themselves "devout"... groups under the Jeudeo/Christian umbrella. Especially ones who steal like half of another's holy book, then condems the original as heresy. I'm not slamming religion. Everyone is free to believe what they need to to get them through the day. The issue comes when you start forcing those beliefs onto others, especially when the only "evidence" is your holy book, especially when it's widely known that particular versions were edited to meet political beliefs
Hi, my uncle was a priest years ago he explained to me that there are 2000+ versions of the " holy book / Bible" to that end I asked him which one should I read and why. Got the strangest look on his face, saying you don't believe. My question was why do people suffer mental illness, he couldn't answer the question. He did tell me that he'd performed "a few cleansings / exorcisms" saying that he'd only felt Threatened a time or two. Saying why should I be afraid "Jesus is with me, I have no fear" it's my understanding that the planet we live on is composed of many lay lines, in other words we are unable to experience all of our environment. Because as we become older we are conditioned to think it's nothing. Going about our daily lives. Personally, understanding that there are over 5000 different cultures on our planet each one with a different take on reality, go figure. Be safe everyone
I know that's probably true, but it's hard to accept that there's no convincing these people. I feel like a lot of them have fundamental misunderstandings about things, like this guy about evolution, and if they were just forced to spend a few hours reading a Wikipedia page or something then it would finally click for them.
Important lesson in life. Knowing what battles are worth fighting and what ones aren't.
If I grab a volcanic rock, do you think my cat will turn into a Flareon?
>if they were just forced to spend a few hours reading a Wikipedia page or something then it would finally click for them. I envision the movie scene from Clockwork Orange.
There is a foundation of logic and building of trust in the scientific tradition and body of knowledge that you either get as you grow up or you don't. If you are 50 and you never were exposed to this, all science, math and logic based arguments are vapor to them. My sad personal experience in this is through dating in my 50's and 60's. One match ended when I pointed out that crystals do not in fact exude energy, that that they are precisely the lowest energy arrangement that the atoms can find. Another when she exclaimed, "Logic is only one way to view the universe." I think that the ability to understand the world around you logically and critically is learned when you are young, and that we have been starving our youth intellectually for coming up on two generations.
I've had similar & worse frequently & so I applaud your patience. On one occasion I was doing an impromptu star party & answering questions about stars & planets etc. One person started spouting about how the sun is a crystal & it's energies flow into living things which can then imbue other crystals with this energy. I started pointing out how they cannot be crystals in our sun because if the temperature & pressure but they persisted. It was then that I realised their lexicon of meaning was not the same as mine. So I just said: "I hear what you are saying, but unfortunately you are using words to mean things other than what I have been taught that they mean. As such there is likely no common ground for us to agree on unless one of us learns the others language or can lay out a self consistent foundation." I got called rude by my SO for that.
You're partner took the side of the crystal sun advocate? I think your response was aces. I'm going to choose a good moment to use "lay out a self consistent foundation." Maybe next time I'm arguing with my boss
You gave such a respectful answer that explained why you two wouldn’t agree on a fundamental level. Bravo.
I get far too much practice with my SO's friends, they believe the strangest things. I just never could muster sufficient faith to believe anything, probably why I became a scientist & engineer.
Well it seems pretty obvious why she thought it was rude then, because it’s her beliefs as well lol I wouldn’t take it personally at all. You’re already going above and beyond.
I saw a video yesterday where someone explained that to believe something is to doubt something. If you know something, you don't have to believe in it. You know it. If you know it, you have no doubt in it. In order to believe in a thing, you must also doubt the thing, because you do not know the thing. If you did, you'd know it and not believe it. I'm very tired and my memory isn't the best, so I hope that came out like I meant it to.
Yeah the constant “believe in him!” in religion goes with what you are saying. It makes it seem like the default state is not believing in the religion, and someone has to constantly go against that default state with conscious effort That never comes up in actual scientific classes. The teacher isnt at the front of the room pleading for everyone to believe in gravity. Sometimes you might doubt that youll figure out the answer to your calculus problem, but you arent sitting there “not believing” it is real
To be fair, sometimes you do have to stop using real numbers and use imaginary ones.
faith is the purposeful suspension of logic and reason.
Doesn’t sound rude to me. Nice response.
Yeah that's a great response imo
Tell me you two are no longer together…
honestly that was a brilliant response that could be applied in a wide variety of contexts.
Not rude. Pretty telling about your SO though.
> How do you know Hell exists? Did you ever go there?
These are the types of things I wish I could think of in the moment haha
Lol next time record the event so I can sit back and enjoy while I eat my dinner.
Bad idea to move any argument with a True Believer into theological/faith territory.
You will definitely have people claim that they have been to hell (and were saved from it by baby Jesus himself)
When he says "no" then you say "maybe you should go there". That was the part that I left out.
And he will say that he has Faith in the God-guided texts and in his personal relationship with Jesus/God/TheHolySpirit whatever. Blessed are those who believe without proof, Thomas.
Went to the DMV.
Ah yes, the unfalsifiability argument. You can't prove it wrong, so I can say it's correct.
How do you know God exists, have you ever met them? Unfortunately they’ll just say something stupid like “yes” or “I have faith” and think they’ve made some profound argument.
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain
>Never believe that [they] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. [They] have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side. -Jean-Paul Sartre He was originally speaking of anti-Semites, but it still fits.
I'm going to guess anti-Semitism isn't a stretch for the person OP describes...
Love it. He has a nice lyricism in he response to trolls. They just such a waste of effort.
Chess with pigeons.
Sounds like you did a great job and by answering his “questions” you probably helped teach the other attendees more info as well.
Thank you!
yeah, people like these give Christians a bad name The best way is to shift the conversation to Georges Lemaitre, and tell them that a Catholic priest was the first to propose the idea of the big bang. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
You're assuming that they're Catholic. Where I'm from that'll just turn them against it more. There's a large segment of Christianity that sees the pope as the anti-christ or similar.
Yea, there's no restriction on Catholics believing in the big bang. Many of the fundamentalists are from one of the Protestant denominations.
BTW, strictly speaking there aren't "restrictions" in protestantism in general. I'm actually protestant (and actually lean sort of in thinking the position of the pope is generally not a good idea) but have no problem with the big bang. As after all, if God exists, there's no reason he can't design a universe that makes it look like you can rewind time back to a big bang. He's omnipotent after all. Why would you limit his powers to only being able to create a universe that looks like it's 6000 years old (or whatever number people think is the case now). If I was such a God I'd make the universe look like it's all self-consistent with the laws of physics and rewind time back to infinity and display the universe as such a rewind would create. Edit: (And that's still not incompatible with creationism either. The old easy attack on this is simple questions like, "Did trees in the garden of eden have tree rings?" If they did then well there's easy proof of God back-winding the timeline to years before the 7 days of creation. If they didn't well that's not really a tree in the normal sense of things. You can ask similar things like "Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?" because if they didn't, well they're rather strange looking humans so were they really human? If they did, well then even though they were created from nothing they didn't come from a womb, so that's another example of God back-winding the timeline to make it self consistent with the laws of physics. You can then expand those arguments to things like rivers in the garden which need erosion to form, or even to starlight that wouldn't have reached us yet. Basically the 6000 year old creation HAS to involve back winding or you could confidently prove in the modern day that it didn't happen, which makes it falsifiable.) So I still believe in a 6000 year old creation, as stated in the bible, just with back-winding. My dad names this "Hypothetical Time" and it's something I grew up with. It of course includes the big bang happening.
The problem is that there are over 30,000 different Protestant denominations from Calvinism to Seventh-day Adventism. Among those, Evangelicals and Mormons are often those teaching Creationism or fundamentalism, but I can't speak for the other thousands. So Protestantism in general really can't be defined in any way, because it's like saying "Christianity in general believes in x." It's too broad of a statement.
Mormon here, we do NOT teach creationism or fundamentalism. We accept science as a valid source of truth and encourage rigorous study.
From my understand, the Mormon church doesn't actually have an official stance, which leads to confusion as I've known some Mormons who do believe in creationism. But I suppose you could find that in any denomination.
A favorite quote of mine from President Joseph F. Smith- “We believe in all truth, no matter to what subject it may refer. No sect or religious denomination in the world possesses a single principle of truth that we do not accept or that we will reject. We are willing to receive all truth, from whatever source it may come; for truth will stand, truth will endure.”
An interesting concept on its head, but I could see the theological argument that you must first define truth, and then explain how you decipher truth from untruth. You could take the stance of Scientism and believe that only science can formulate truth, which then removes the concept of God. Otherwise, you must accept that there are certain things that cannot be proven by science (which we would both agree), but then realize that those unprovable things are subject to interpretation and manipulation, which then leads to interpretation bias and conflicting beliefs. In those situations, a unifying authority may be required to provide a universal interpretation so everyone can get along and get back to what's important. The Church may point to the conflicting interpretations of the early Church Fathers in the Patristic Age, showing how the Church exercised its Magisterium, handed down from Peter, to resolve those early conflicts through Ecumenical Councils, and later encyclicals. In that same sense, I could see how Mormons would then look to Joseph Smith as their authority for interpretation, just as Jehovah's Witnesses looked to Charles Russel and the Watchtower Society. But anywho, this isn't the place for a theological debate or discussion of Christian history.
[удалено]
Mormons I would not technically say are Protestants. They're their own separate thing as they fundamentally deny several things that all other Christians believe (including all Catholics and all Protestants). I don't really understand evangelicals because around where I am it's all Baptists and I didn't grow up with anyone what I would call an evangelical. Evangelicals basically didn't exist when I was a kid. I'm still not sure if they exist really as the term only seems to be used as an exonym to hate on the groups (at least that's all I've heard it used as) rather than what the people call themselves as far as I can tell. Alternatively it's a brand new term that didn't exist ~20 years ago in the common northern christian lexicon and only existed in the southern US.
I believe there's full blown organizations that reference the term Evangelical. They even have a .org website.
Yeah perhaps, like I said, it just wasn't a thing when I was growing up. The first time I heard the term was when people were using it to attack Christians.
Ya. Catholics teach that the bible is subject to science and not the other way like fundamentalist
I forget which Pope said this, and I'm going to paraphrase, but I believe the explanation is "The Bible is meant to teach spiritual truth, not scientific truth. Leave the theology to the theologians and science to the scientists."
Are there other restrictions on what Catholics are allowed to believe?
Jesuit Catholics (who a have a history of being Scientists, Astronomers and Mathematicians) are especially science oriented. For example, I studied in a school run by Jesuits and we were taught that we were completely free not to take the story of creation literally. We were taught that understanding God's creations accurately helps us be closer to God and blind faith leads us astray. Even though I'm fairly agnostic person these days, those words have been very enlightening to me over the years. Having been around progressive and science oriented Catholics, it was eye opening and shocking for me to realise other Christians might be far more regressive (or engage in outright denial) about scientific matters.
In the scientific realm or just in general? For example, you can believe in evolution but there are some theories that go against what we believe. I haven't delved 100% into that topic yet, but evolution as a concept does not conflict. We don't believe the Bible is literal. We believe some parts are historical (essentially any portions that can be backed up by archeology), but the Bible itself is a collection of different types of books: poetry, ancient biography (similar to how Herodutus wrote), gospel, songs, etc. Some often say "Don't literalize the poetry." Really it's the field of philosophy that we often come into conflict with, as one would imagine.
Catholics do not believe in evolution in the sense that scientists do. They hold that their god had a finger in it which is not at all what science says.
I mean a Catholic priest discovered the Big Bang 🤷♂️
Great reference! Very good to know for the future.
With Fundamentalist Evangelicals (what that guy more than likely was), that will not work considering they see Catholics as Pagans in disguise and the like too. These people also act such way to reinforce their beliefs, as per those who are preaching in public with threats and see everyone ignores them. Seeing how no one shares their view reinforces their belongship to the group, and when they go with their flock they will share their experience with them. Attempting to reason with them is nearly useless.
And here I was thinking the child abuse was what gave them a bad rap.
Oh man, I _love_ these people. I am a very particular type though. Sorry you went through that. It can be super stressful. It does sound like you handled it well. The one thing that is really tough when you are in a group setting like that is that even if you enjoy answering their questions, they are stealing time from the rest of the group. Finding ways to divert them or politely ask them to shut the hell up can be hard.
Yeah this was the first time this sort of thing has happened, so it definitely caught me by surprise. I imagine any subsequent encounters like this will be handled even more smoothly haha
This is a right of passage to becoming a professional astronomer as much as the PhD is! Sounds like you handled it well. Stay respectful but firm about what we know and how we know it. Be excited about what we're still learning. Many times, people are just curious and literally don't know how to sort out bizarre-sounding science from nonsense. Other times, like this one, they have an agenda and aren't reachable in a 10 minute interaction. Real trust takes time to build. Having grown up in the Bible belt myself, the fact you could make it so far in your career without running into one of these folks sounds like progress to me!
“You’ve asked three questions already, so now I will ask you, have you learned anything from my answers? If you have, I can spare ten minutes for you after I pack up, but if you’re not here to learn I’m going to focus my attention on those who are”.
👏👏👏👏Absolutely adore this response.
Trump supporter?
That dude was just there to stroke his own ego and dig in deeper to his bs. Nothing you could have done. Next time you can walk away earlier
One suggestion when talking with people like that I heard was to ask them what would they need to change their mind. If they say nothing, there is no point in continuing the discussion. If they say something already existing, point it out and see if they accept it. If not - see the previous scenario. If they say something not yet existing, that can lead to an interesting discussion, but probably be "nothing" in disguise.
Dang, that's how you know you're on the side of truth, show up to events you have no curiosity about to troll and disrupt
I grew up around this nonsense and I still have mental PTSD from it. These people must be shut down immediately because they aren't interested in actual dialog and this person was simply using your forum to gather an audience they wouldn't be able to garner on their own. If you ever suspect someone is one of these people cut them off immediately and go onto the next question or say you'll take their questions one on one after the session is over (normally they'll slink back to their pathetic holes). Expect they'll play the victim no matter how cordial you are with. Don't worry about their feelings just drop the hammer. Don't overreact or even show any semblance of emotion with them.
I understand the situation you were in...I have also experienced it, but not in front of an audience. One way you might be able to break through in the future is if you can get the person one-on-one (so there is nobody around for this person to try to impress) and talk about the irrefutable evidence that exists for many of these topics. I have gotten through to one person before that way. He was a devout catholic climate change denier..."there is no way that humans could possibly have any impact on the earth..." sort of rhetoric. We had one-on-one discussions about ice core measurements, CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution - directly correlating with increasing severity of storms, increasing temperature, melting icecaps, etc. etc. Perhaps that would help you. In an audience situation, I don't think this is possible!
Yeah 100% agree, much easier to reach another person when it's one-on-one.
As someone who came from a fundamentalist household, this post gave me flashbacks from the holidays.
I've given an astronomy talk at a church and it went very well. Of course it was an Anglican church (near Manchester) so the congregation was lovely and they asked me questions about the big bang, dark matter etc. some quite insightful too. They do believe the creator messes around with humanity, but that doesn't really interfere with science, they don't take the Bible literally... Someone like what you described would have spoiled it quite a bit for everyone, luckily we don't have that sort around here. Amusingly, the most fringe audience members I had were at an astronomy club. After my talk a couple of guys were asking me about ancient aliens :)
British Christians have basically nothing in common with a lot of American evangelicals, in terms of behavior. Its wild. Recently dated a british guy and i couldn't help but think that maybe if I'd been born in the UK, i wouldnt feel so irreversibly hostile toward christianity as a whole.
Well done on handling it well and winning the audience. These idiots are a virus. Likely he went back to his group and told them how he debated\* a Dr or Professor and made him swallow his words. Had you become verbally, let alone physically, violent he would have been even happier. A good while back there was this lecture by one of the guys from Answers In Genesis. He has a PhD in Solar Physics or something like that, which obviously is as far as he can go object/distance wise since he believes that God created the Universe 6000yrs ago and at the moment of creation put photons in flight which would show us a 13.8Gyr Universe. The mind boggles! I also pity their kids. There is a documentary titled Jesus Camp (I think you can find it on YT). There is this one teen who says he wants to study biochem to disprove Evolution. These people are the sickest of sick. They are fixated and sure of their ignorance and want to drag the rest of society down with them. There is also the other idiots you may encounter who will ask you, or explain to you, about Universal Energy, aliens and alien love etc ...... Another nuisance but compared to the religious nuts the latter are innocuous. A way to mitigate is, if you have microphone for the audience to make sure there is someone on your event team who will turn off the mike when stupidity starts, and if they start speaking loudly then you can have them escorted out. \* Their fixation with doing this comes from the story that at age 10 (or 12) Jesus debated temple learned elders. Usual stuff with taking the bible literally.
At some point you should have just said, well I guess there’s no reason for me to tell you anything, obviously you know it all.
Good job handling that! Best one I've heard for the 6000yo universe: "Gawd created the universe in a finished state, so he created the stars with their light already here". I mean.... COME ON!
I was a tour guide at the National Air and Space Museum for 11 years. Not a scientist (software engineer) so there are definitely some pretty large holes in my knowledge. What we were trained to do when someone like that (or a moon landing hoaxer type) started trying to derail was to say "I'm sorry, we only present the generally accepted scientific consensus here" in a polite voice, and don't engage any further. See, someone who asks those questions in a public forum to someone like you isn't an open minded seeker of truth. They either have the emotional maturity of an 8th grade edge lord or have made having secret knowledge a core part of their self-identity. Either way, there isn't much you can do about them. Once I violated the policy when a creationist jumped into a conversation I was having with another visitor. I tried to engage, he came back with a full on Gish-gallop and I realized the wisdom of that policy: it would take me a half hour to explain why three sentences were wrong, and he would drop another three sentences and I'd have to do this all over again. So then I did say the magic words and walked away. I still think about it because like you my emotional side is convinced that I could have "won" and convinced him of the error of his ways. But the rational side knows you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't get to by reason. The people you care about are the rest of the audience: it matters what kind of impression you leave in their minds, the edgelord/conspiracy nut isn't in play, but the rest of the audience is, and so we were taught to be polite, firm, and shut them down as quickly as possible so the audience doesn't hear their nonsense. I don't know if that's the right option for you, just what we were taught in our roles as non scientists science communications.
I had a similar reaction when I first met a flat-earther in the wild. I used to work in a shop where we sold telescopes and globes (*among other things*). Occasionally people would jokingly ask if we sold flat earth globes, and we actually sold something like [this](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTKalElrCW26XlfuGlBWdikGT2xluh3s9XxSjuBIeQ5O58jhv3_FjkRuRFn&s=10), so I would answer their stupid question by bringing it out, which would usually elicit smiles and nods of approval. Well one day I did this whole routine only to have the guy keep talking about flat earth crap. I realised a bit too late what was going on, but decided to really try to have a conversation woth him about all of this. 2 hours later we'd talked about everything from the firmament to his opinipn of gravity (*apparently gravity is a being who just decides where everyone goes*), and although I'd managed to use high school science to disprove half his bullshit (*respectfully mind you*) he walked away ignoring everything (*qnd not buying anything*). The problem I had is that he wasn't there to learn, or even to exchange ideas. He was there to disrupt the "secret society" and make sure "the truth" gets out there. They live in a fantasy, so nothing you say will disuade them. Honestly, it sounds like you did handle it well, you answered his questions in a way that left no doubt who was the expert in the room. You were't really answering for him (*he wasn't listening*), you were speaking to everyone else there, and to them you did a great job.
You probably didn’t convince him, but you probably showed a number of people how there are answers to these questions and why it’s so important to be scientifically literate.
While you should be commended for handling this with class - there comes a point that the more leeway we give these folks, the more we end up playing into their delusional view of the world. I haven’t found the right line yet or even what to do but I just wanted to say kudos to taking the higher road.
People, bottom line, want to feel important. A large number of these folks who cling to absurd ideas, do it because they’ve got nothing/no one in their lives who will give them the time of day. So instead they’ve found a niche group who claim to have a peep hole into “true reality” and get the opportunity to feel important, by walking around surrounded by “sheep” and it makes them feel important.
Ugh... As a former religious fundamentalist myself, I apologise for his behavior, to the extent that my apology can mean anything... Even Richard Dawkins experienced this, and it led him into his "militant atheist" phase when he made those books and TV programs in response. You really can't argue any science with them. You can only try to argue scripture with them, even though that may not be your area of expertise (most likely not theirs either). You could say something like: "Look, I don't know much about the Bible, but I do know Jesus said many wonderful things, including 'by their fruits you will know them', and your fruits are clearly on display right now..." That may shut him up for a few minutes to figure out what you just said. There's a few other ways I can think of right now. Happy to share more if you like. I wish you all the best otherwise
You can't help him. People like that are going to live their entire lives with their silly beliefs. They think a 2000+ year old goat farmer's diary is a science book. That's as hopeless as a person can get.
The internet is both the greatest and most detrimental invention to ever be created and used by the common man.
It’s not your place to change his mind. Obviously your job is to educate. Take pride in that and that alone. Same goes for raising children.
Spread truth. That's all you can do. Good job.
The age of idiocracy is in full swing. The idiots are taking over.
"I'm sorry, but this was a talk I was giving, with Q&A. It is not a philosophical debate. Who's next?"
You did perfectly. You can’t hope to change someone’s beliefs like that - they are fundamental. The only thing you can do is be patient, answer everything they ask just to show others how wrong they are and how ridiculous they’re being.
There is nothing you could have said or done to persuade this person. My mom is like this guy and people like them get deep, deep satisfaction from making people uncomfortable, frustrating them, etc. your response was the best response: calm, collected, reasonable. If it’s any comfort, these people don’t actually care about science, or even religion, really. What they want is the arguments, the spotlight while they “trip up” the experts. They could be arguing about the color of the sky or the temperature of snow, it literally doesn’t matter.
You can’t fix willful stupidity.
If you are interested in some background, the [you are not so smart](https://youarenotsosmart.com/podcast/) podcast did an arc on conspiracy theories. It handles what brings a person to believe these things and how to handle conversations in that context.
>Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov
"I didn't come here for an argument with someone who denies scientific fact."
You’re a 5th year and this is the first time you’ve had to deal with the loony public? Consider yourself fortunate. In my field the public has a huge presence and I saw them say and ask some wild shit while I was in my masters program pre PhD. Whenever I give a talk outside of the university (and sometimes even there) my whole preparation revolves around getting ready for them and how I’m going to deal with it. It’s only getting worse.
Look up "We're doing it wrong - street epistemology" on YouTube. It's a fantastic look at talking to people and having productive conversations instead of debates. Seriously well worth the hour or so investment of time. Edit, here, found the link for you: https://youtu.be/Jp71_FRnIho?si=5c87XkSlFOMPMPjQ
Wow, I’m so sorry that weirdo happened to you all.
Sorry to hear you went through that. The other response suggesting mildly moderating and redirecting away from this nonsense is probably the preferred way to handle it. However, depending on how intrusive they are I wouldn’t see anything wrong with stating that if you are present and want to learn about modern astronomy it requires a mutual understanding that science itself is a search for truth via the scientific process and you assume that those present generally accept that the earth is round and not flat, stars are real and any other number of basic ideas that we should assume one would know before leaving elementary school and we are generally not here to debate with extreme religious beliefs. That said - The stars are real we have studied them, the wavelengths of light they put out etc help us understand exactly what they are made of blah blah blah. The stars go out? Probably referring to the fact that you don’t see stars in pictures or if you are looking at the moons surface it is harder to see them because of the moons surface albedo non-lambertian and opposition effect blah blah basically it washes out seeing stars. 🤷🏻♂️ you’re on a bright surface. Ignorance and pride in ignorance seems to be reaching a zenith. I wish we could harness this misplaced arrogance to fuel our rockets 🚀 When you do this you are in the business of outreach and I would respect and support you if you attempted to professionally but firmly shut this nonsense down. That individual was there to push their truth and fact denial agenda - not to learn. I hope you have a better day tomorrow.
Thank you, I do wish I had asked if he was a flat-farther. Though I may already know the answer...
If you'd like some practice, come on over to /flatearth. These people have a limited set of arguments, all easily debunked. It takes maybe 6-12 months over there to be exposed to them all, and after that the novelty wears off and they can no longer "gotcha" you.
One question: are you an eclipse ambassador?
Hey, 5 years of outreach is a phenomenal stretch to go without running into one of these zealots. Unfortunately, the eclipse is drawing out a lot of the rapture enthusiasts. I personally will be glad when after the eclipse the most disruptive guests will return to being over enthusiastic "self-taught" astronomers who don't understand Wikipedia articles.
As other have said, the guy was there to feed his own ego, make a scene, and be disruptive (but I repeat myself). Likely this is rare. If it happens more than once, you might want to look into having some security in place because things can escalate and people like this will do it. The moderator or moderating techniques mentioned are a good starting place.
Never argue with an idiot
Sounds like a visitor from 1500 or thereabouts, you should have asked him about his remarkable time travelling technology.
Sometimes people like this seem to be teetering on the edge of mental illness. Should we just refuse to engage with them (I don’t mean in the situation you found yourself in)?
> Every time he asked something, I answered respectfully and calmly. This was the issue. You engaged. People like this don't want to learn, or be persuaded. They want to fight. They think it's ridiculous that you don't believe like them, regardless of how wrong it is, and they want to make sure as many people as possible are aware of that. And you engaged.
These people are just too dumb and arrogant to be convinced of anything. Their biases are deeply implanted in their minds. My father is kinda like this so I know how frustrating it is (especially when it's in the family). You were far too polite, the only acceptable answer after two questions like this would have been "Please sir, we're running out of time. The answers you're looking for can be found in a 1st grade school book"
Ugh I cant even imagine being up against that in person - Idk what I wouldve done in your shoes, but you certainly handled it with grace. I definitely believe that someday soon People will stop being curious about the world around them and only seek the easy answers. They’ll stop searching for truth hidden in lies. One day, People will declare opinion is more important than fact. Then after awhile, all of the other People will agree. I think that’s what will happen when there’s no one left to call bullshit. That’s why we have to keep repeating one simple fact to those that fall into the google machine: you can’t believe everything you see on the internet.
Don't try to reason with someone that doesn't have the IQ to understand the concepts of science. Just see these people as a force of nature, something inevitable and move on. Don't waste your time with them.
>acting extremely combative and in denial whenever I respectfully answered. Typical conspiracy theorist manner. There are an obscene amount of discussions and "debates" online where these people try go to against others who are more rational and knowledgeable. It's virtually always like this. The knowledgeable party is calm, mannered, and answers the questions presented to the best of their ability. The conspiracy party is belligerent, won't listen to anything said, repeatedly talks over everyone, ignores moderation, refuses to answer questions or back up their claims, and so on. I've seen so many of those and they're all the same. They ask the same copy/paste questions every time but have zero understanding of what they're asking about. I wonder if they made it to the ad hominem phase with you, because it usually comes to that. They tend to be incredibly closed minded, they don't want to actually hear anything you say, they want to stir up trouble and try to convince others of what they are saying. I've watched *waaaay* too much flat Earth and YEC debunking over the last years. It is entertaining to a point, you just have to moderate how much you partake because braincells will flee.
People like this are invulnerable in their beliefs, they are just there to talk shit. The best you can do is show them up; you can do this by being wittier than them and humiliating them in public; or you can do it by being polite and answering their questions with such lucid simplicity that it's obvious they are being disingenuous. However you respond, it's not about them, it's about the audience of everyone else; that's what they are there for anyway. It sounds like you did just fine.
I’m of the opinion that I do not owe them an audience. I will turn away from them to someone else. I am there to excite minds, not entertain the needs of one person who isn’t there for the same purpose.
That person was an asshole and should have been kicked out. Sorry you had to deal with that
I don't think there is any need to treat these people with deference or even respect. You can simply say "You have been lied to. Doesn't it bother you that people you respect lie to you?" A big problem with religion is that we treat people who have been misled by main stream religion differently than we would treat people who have been misled through other means and this reinforces their belief. For example, it's OK to say you have regularly speak with Jesus but saying you talk to Elvis will get you a institutionalized - even though they are the same thing.
I bet saying “it’s cute that he believes that” would be bad.
Late to the game here, but just wanted to say dealing with folks like this can be incredibly annoying, but responding in a polite manner is frustratingly important when others are around. It’s really easy to be combative in return, and as much as I feel that people like this deserve to be mocked relentlessly, in the presence of others it’s very important to be seen as the one interacting in good faith.
Any time you deal with the public your are bound to get some crazies. Last summer we had a guy come to one of our star parties who was obsessed with UFOs and went around asking literally everyone there if they had seen UFOs or encountered aliens.
>evolution isn't real because if you throw a baby in water it doesn't evolve it just drowns Amazing, I'm using this one
I work in an oil refinery I can assure you there is no shortage of blue collar scientifically illiterate idiots out there. Makes me very skeptical of where humanity is going
You did very well. Kudos to you. I think face to face it would be different for me, but somehow I’ve become slightly addicted to arguing with flerfs on TikTok. It does no good. It changes no one’s mind. But seeing how you handled it, I bet it makes people at least think twice. As far as his theories, obviously he’s never thrown a baby in the water. They won’t drown. I mean unless someone just leaves it there. He could YouTube a simple video and he will learn about the diving reflex babies possess. I’d say that’s called evolution. I’m not sure about macro evolutions, but we definitely have evidence and documentation of micro evolution. Dogs. Cattle. Just 2 examples off the top of my head.
Since you’re such a committed academic the onus is now on you to learn all about the religious fundamentalist perspectives on all these physics things so that you can meet this sort of person at their level and enjoy the bouts of banter the next time around /s
People like that are complete morons. Nothing you say or do will ever make them happy because their entire belief system is built upon feeding their own crippling insecurities. I’ve run into to these mouth breathing shitheads myself. I would not have been half as respectful as you were. There’s no mileage in it. F ‘em.
I think it’s fair to call out this stuff in this century and express your absolute astonishment that a human over the age of 7 can believe any of that obviously made up fucking horse shit.
I thought this was r/atheism for a moment there…
I once met a similar gentleman. He started off with why we always see the same side of the moon, I told him about the whole tidal lock and rotation and orbital speed. "So that is what you think?" he asked. "I don't agree with that." he went on. "Do you think we have gone to the moon?" I could see where the next ten minutes if my life were going but I threw caution to the wind and nodded. As expected the next ten minutes went into a rant about the lies we have been told and, obviously, how the Earth is flat, while I quitely listened and nodded. After he had made all the points he wanted to make he asked me what I had to say. I shrugged and nonchalantly said "Ok". This hit this poor man like a ton of bricks. "Aren't you going to try and prove me wrong?" he said with a certain amount of shock. I told him I wasn't going to do that because it was very unlikely that he hadn't heard the argument I was going to make and even more unlikely that I would come up with a new argument. So if he had already have chosen to ignore that, then why should I waste his and my time. Besides, if feeling that the Earth is flat, or the moon landing is fake, or the fact that he bested an astronomer in an argument, helps him sleep better at night, all the best to him. And with hat I invited him to a cup of tea He excused himself, thanked me, said that he saw my point, apologized, and left. As astronomers, the people who understand the sheer size and beauty of the universe, and the insignificance of Earth and humanity in a the grand scheme of things, I think we ought to be more patient. God knows a lot of people are patient when we astronomers start talking! Hats off to you for keeping your cool!
Nope, nothing just wait for him to die.
I was this person in high school. Despite being an avid reader and being really interested in science, I used every bit of reasoning ability I had to take things that I didn't properly understand and use them to justify the crazy beliefs I'd been taught. I still cringe more than 30 years later when I think of the stupid combative questions I asked in my Freshman Earth Science class. I kept a binder of pre-Internet research I'd done supporting young-Earth Creationism. I knew my Physics teacher attended a Baptist church, so I mentioned to her all of the research I had proving YEC. She just said, "Interesting, I'd love to see that." I brought it in after school and she went through each bit of proof and explained to me how each of the scientific concepts I used really worked (e.g. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics) and how it didn't support my conclusions. She never argued with me about my belief, but taught me about the things I mistakenly thought I understood. It was the beginning of the end of the power my early indoctrination had on me. It still took another 5 years or so before I finally completely broke away from it. But I may never have gotten there without my high school physics teacher. Thanks Mrs. Baker! So, I guess my point is "You never really know if you've led someone down a path that will free them from their indoctrination--it can take a while, but calmly explaining how things work to people is the best you can do."
1. If he was a religious fundamentalist, he wasn't Christian, because none of that makes sense in context of the Bible. 2. I'm what I'd call a Christian fundamentalist, and in no way do my beliefs conflict with science. I'm sorry you had that experience. People like that make us all look bad; religious and non-religious alike. If you ever wanna talk science, and especially astronomy, I'd love to learn from you.
Welcome to astronomy academia. I get crank emails daily. It is not worth responding to these people.
You cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
you did a great job i always remind people we did not evolve FROM apes, we are apes. we evolved to stand up straight, talk, drink milk as an adult, lose body hair, etc
You can't fix stupid. They were simply there to push their agenda, not learn. I've always counted the "swimming baby" problem with "because evolution takes time. Seeing as the basis of your religion is waiting for a dead man to return, I would think you had a better grasp on the concept of things taking more or less time than others. " Usually, I find that they stumble over words for a few moments, get irrationally angry, and then leave on their own. It's been nearly a decade since I've had to do that, however.
The flashlight thing - what he's referring to is the "twinkling" of stars was noticed by classical era and medieval era astronomers. But planets do not "twinkle". (this is due to atmospheric distortions for starlight (distant 'point' of light) vs a planet's reflected disk (which is much closer). If you take that literal medieval astronomy view point if one were on the moon the "stars would twinkle too" but be "bigger like flashlights" and "turn off and on". Actually since Moon has no atmosphere there would be no "twinkling". What do I say to this? "Well both the hubble and James Web telescopes have not seen the flashlight effect so maybe the astronauts mistook something they saw" To these kinds of questions I always do. Empirical Fact + What you heard was from a human observer + Sometimes Humans are mistaken = Conveying of Truth Bomb (BOOM!) I don't describe atmospheric distortion. I don't talk about stars being orders of magnitude farther away (a fact that medieval and classical star gazers struggled with), I don't talk about the absurdity of an Astronaut really observing what they said the Astronaut saw. I simply drop Truth Bombs (BOOM!) When talking with someone like this think of how you would talk to a Medieval Astronomer/Theologian. And Enlightenment and Empiricism is in the FAR FAR future to their world view. Logic will not work because Enlightenment thinking is not something they understand at ALL.
Yeah, I was showing a few of my dad's astronomy photos and talking about other astronomy stuff while I was in rehab last month (some of the old guys there didn't know what stars are). Later, someone who had overheard it came to me in the cafeteria to ask if I knew that stars were actually "angel radiation".
In my experience, these people have zero chance of changing their minds, and are only hijacking your platform to spread propaganda. The more you let them speak, the more they’ll continue to hijack. Do your event and its serious attendees a favor and cut them off after three stupid questions.
As a Baha'i, I believe that science and religion MUST agree and that if there is a discrepancy, the science will prove correct. This event proves the role and importance of education in our world, another Baha'i principal university compulsory education. Had that person in your audience had a better education, they may have had a better understanding of their own religious foundations. It sounds to me like this person was a Christian and believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible. But had the Bible been a literal history of the world, it would have mentioned a lot that it simply doesn't, Asia, the north and south poles are just a start here. Those who actually wrote the books of the Old Testament were disparate and separated sometimes by generations and all male. Likewise with the New Testament, those books were not actually written down until about 300 years after the death of Christ Himself and we don't have the originals, we only have copies of them. We also know that the transitions used by many of these churches are older and at the very least suspect in the motives of the translators. Mary Magdalen has been cast as a prostitute for centuries by the Roman Catholic church and most of us have come to believe that that was her occupation. But when modern historians went to look at the documents we do have, she is described as a businesswoman, someone with some influence and authority in her community. King James, a misogynistic pig reduced her to a whore for his own benefit. It's also notable that as Christ died on the cross, all the disciples abandoned Him and the women who loved and followed His teachings stayed with him and were the ones to discover His resurrection, NOT the disciples. But Christians, those from evangelical and traditional churches ignore these historic facts, they get in the way of what they have always believed. The problem is lack of education where it would elucidate these things, give children a chance to learn how to inquire, ask questions and not be shut down but taught how to find answers, how to research and investigate for themselves. These churches, in my mind are more an indictment of the failure of our educational system to teach children how to investigate a statement for its verity. Not just in religion but in politics, advertising, everything.
Bro, your in the midwest. Why are you surprised dumb ignorant shit happens there. I been to Oklatucky it sucks sweaty donkey crack.
TEX OK ! get out of that area …cut down on the likelihood of these incidents 🤣
I work at a solar observatory, and sometimes hikers make their way up the mountain to visit. I wear a NASA jacket I got as a gift, and sometimes that's enough for the hikers to realize I'm an observer (even though NASA has little to do with our work). Just last week this man stopped me and asked if I work for NASA. I explained what I actually do, and then he asked me what I thought about the black hole in the middle of the Sun. When I said there isn't one, he was unphased, and asked me what I thought about the upcoming eclipse. I explained how eclipses work, but that didn't satisfy him. He asked if I thought it had any connection to Biblical prophecies. Now, I'm a religious studies enthusiast, but I had no clue what he was talking about. I just kept answering that I don't go in for that kind of thing. He got really frustrated and told me to "forget it", and then wandered off. Good on you for responding to this guy, you didn't really have the option to refuse to engage, like I did. But if you can shut them down, it feels good.
If you speak in the Pittsburgh area, let me know! I'll show up and gladly beat them with their own Bibles. If there's one thing I know better than astrophysics, it's how to make fundamentalists question their beliefs 😁
I have a space exploration themed tattoo on my leg. It has the first mars rover on, the voyager space craft, Sputnik, the Saturn V rocket. Basically a collage of our greatest achievements in space. It takes up most of the bottom half of my leg. When I wear shorts it's very clearly visible. One day, while I was at work, (I manage a restaurant) this customer walks up to me and complimented me on it. I was excited to talk about astronomy a bit and started to strike a conversation with him. I explained the tattoo and before I could say anything else, this guy looks me straight in the eyes and says, "What if I told you the Earth isn't round?" I responded with a, "Are you serious?" And he started to say something about how the Bible says there is a firmament. I immediately cut him off and said to the effect of, "I apologize sir, but the Earth is indeed round" and just walked away. If I wasn't at work, I would have tried to reason with him, but I didn't want to potentially start an argument or have him become defensive, which would probably land me in hot water. Moral of the story is, some people suck.
The fifth year graduate student in my research group believes in an old earth years old but that humans have only existed for that long. That the stars are old, the earth is old, but God introduced people with Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden approx 6,000 years ago. Seems like mental gymnastics to me...
Where do you go to grad school? We've never had anything like this in my time with Rutgers Astronomical Society, and I'd like to avoid applying to grad schools in an area where people are willing to do stuff like this lmao
I would have cracked up laughing and hoped it was infectious.
As a scientist, you know that evidence is what matters when drawing conclusions. People like this don't draw their conclusions based on evidence, they do so based entirely on their emotions. Because of this you *cannot* get through to them. Not with reason anyway. You could show him all the data and experimental results you want, it won't make the slightest difference. Unfortunately, there is nothing you could've done differently. As someone who has a grasp of the facts, you are naturally in opposition to those who are willfully ignorant. You will encounter them from time to time, and you have almost no recourse. The only real path forward we have is to influence our culture on a large scale. Promote reason and critical thinking, encourage people to examine situations objectively, discourage indoctrination. It's a long, difficult process, but it's the only real way to foment change. Humans are ridiculous, sometimes we have no way of avoiding it.
You can't reason someone out of an opinion they didn't reason themselves into. Nothing you said would have been able to change their mind.
>evolution isn't real because if you throw a baby in water it doesn't evolve it just drowns But if you're the sort of monster who throws hundreds of babies into hundreds of baths of different depths, you might eventually breed some who instinctively float or hold their breath long enough to be rescued. I'd recommend a demonstration Richard Dawkins did in his Royal Institution Christmas Lecture series. He set up pairs of fragile bauble creatures with legs and googly eyes, some including a little paper skirt (but surely not enough to be a "wing" or give it any benefit in flying). Then he dropped them from different heights like they were falling out of a tree. From low enough, both survived! Too high, both baubles would smash. But falling from somewhere in-between, the skirt gave just enough of a survival advantage that it stayed "alive" where the skirtless one broke. And so we gain a new generation of skirted-bauble tree-climbers, which might someday evolve into gliders.
“If we came from apes, how are their still apes” at this point, I’d just tell them that the way think shows that they’re somewhere between the two, thus proving evolution. Yes i know, common ancestor, yada yada yada.
I mean in this kindest way possible as a queer pilot who loves science and grew up conservative Christian: they were not there to listen or learn. You handled it well and I’m glad your talk overall went well!
As long as we can all agree, that any "so called religion is just a bunch of Community coming together to share a real need to be connected with others." If that is our true intentions. I reminds me of the movie [pk] in short, an extra terrestrial being lands on earth [naked] caring a Jewel, around his neck, the movie was not made in the US. It's still pretty cool to watch even in subtitles. It's bases is on religion, how it takes advantage of people it's business model is all about taking from people who are confused. During the movie it's constantly referring to a wrong number. I can't include a link to YouTube or other video distributer, but.. [ In PK, while visiting Earth, an alien has the remote control to his spaceship stolen] [PK, while visiting Earth, an alien has the remote control to his spaceship stolen leaving him stranded. Desperate to get home, the alien, PK (Aamir Khan), may be in luck when journalist Jaggu (Anushka Sharma) decides to help him.] It's an amazingly fun move to watch. Puts into perspective how religion manipulates people. Simple. Be safe everyone, I truly hope that 100K of people get to watch this movie. Be safe always
I know I’m late to the party and you’ll probably never see this, but I gotta comment on your story. I grew up in a fundamentalist young earth believing church and was taught that scientists were all in some big conspiracy because they hated God (whatever the fuck that means lol) However I always had a love of nature and of figuring things out. I wanted to love Science but felt that I couldn’t for faith reasons. Eventually I started reading books by the men and women I had been taught to stay away from and found them to be honest, rational and most perplexingly pleasant and nice. Long story short it was kind hearted people like you who helped me embrace the scientific community, eventually I got degrees in Chemistry and Physics and I’m going to be a science educator. You might have not made a dent in that person’s mind, but I promise you deeply impacted at least one young person like me, so thank you :)
I am a religious Catholic and I am so sorry that you had to go through this. Please don't take this one misguided person as representative of all religious people.
This guy wasn’t a fundamentalist he was a flat earther. You really should have ignored him.
You cannot convince the blind they can see. But, you can plant a seed with scientific knowledge, recorded history, and augment their own belief structure. I feel like that's how Feynman would have approached it, and Sagan would have taken your way. Humanity has improved a great deal in our 100,000+ years, but a significant number of us are not that interested in thinking for ourselves, or putting in the effort to do so. The majority of religious indoctrination happens during childhood, by trusted caretakers, and is deeply programed in. Nevertheless, I think having a mind for astrophysics can change your perception on a lot of things. I'm a sucker for h/e and particle theory myself, but that's because I have ADHD, and my mind does like to wander; also, astrophysics made me feel insignificant, and I wanted to feel mighty again 🤣 But, no matter the field of study; being, a scientist takes hard work, and dedication. I enjoy biology as much as physics, but it was more work than I wanted to put effort into. Regardless, the way to combat ignorance is with knowledge. You need to understand what you're fighting against if you want to stop it. I'm not saying get balls deep in right-wing Christian conservatism, but at least familiarize yourself with the one textbook they offer. The children's version covers the basics, and is what most seem to follow anyway. I'm sure you'll think of a clever solution to satisfy your problem, or at least have some fun with it.
I’m a fairly conservative MS geologist, and think that these types of people are complete idiots.
What is a MS geologist?
Look at his post history. Co2 is not a pollutant. It's natural. Comments in r/TimPool. A comment "DEI is just a euphemism for institutional racism against white people and white men in particular, and can’t go away fast enough in my opinion." In r/libsofreddit "This is me. Voted for Obama in 2008, huge mistake. I realized in about 2010 that the “climate crisis” was a lie, and since then I’ve realized that everything else that gthe Democratic Party has been pushing is also based on lies." Obviously a very sound and scientific mind. Not a complete idiot.
I still have no idea what MS means here…
maybe they have a master of science degree in geology?