> You can challenge incorrectness without condescension (and its usually more effective that way.)
In short bursts, sure. Sorta like, if someone believes that Elvis is secretly a lizard-man who is now pretending to be President Biden, then that could be responded to in simple, polite terms that aren't immediately condescending.
However, the scientific-community, literature, etc., would tend to be cumulatively dismissive and condescending toward the idea, failing to take it seriously. For example, such an idea wouldn't tend to get a mention in every article that mentions President Biden, even if proponents of the idea might continue to hold a strong interest in that belief.
This might lead to folks who'd hold such a belief continuing to find the literature dismissive and condescending toward their beliefs, even if no-one overtly makes rude comments on the topic.
But even avoiding rudeness is unrealistic. For example, someone who believes that Elvis is a lizard-man who is now pretending to be President Biden, and they start advertising their idea everywhere -- say on Wikipedia-articles and in comment-sections of articles -- how does one respond to that? If they're treated politely and accepted, then everything gets bogged down with non-sense. Eventually, everything's covered with conspiracy-theories about how President Biden's secretly a lizard-man, or a fish-man, or a real man pretending to be a lizard-man, or an alien pretending to be an AI pretending to be a fish, etc., and then everything's just noise.
> Sorta like, if someone believes that Elvis is secretly a lizard-man who is now pretending to be President Biden, then that could be responded to in simple, polite terms that aren't immediately condescending.
You JUST did the exact thing I am talking about. You equated having an incorrect understanding of science with believing Biden is a lizard man Elvis.
You aren't conducting science, explaining science, or even challenging incorrect scientific beliefs. You are using science as a bludgeon to demean people you don't agree with.
It is OK to be wrong and it is OK to entertain incorrect ideas. These are critical parts of learning. It is also OK to say when things are wrong. Mocking people for being wrong is alienating and counter productive.
> You JUST did the exact thing I am talking about. You equated having an incorrect understanding of science with believing Biden is a lizard man Elvis.
I was concerned that, if I selected a common conspiracy-theory, folks who believe in it might feel attacked. So I picked a made-up conspiracy-theory that I didn't think anyone would feel emotionally invested in.
> So I picked a made-up conspiracy-theory that I didn't think anyone would feel emotionally invested in.
You picked one that was absurd but yet similar enough to existing beliefs to mock them with that absurdity. This is exactly the kind of 'othering' that the article pushes back against.
In short bursts, sure. Sorta like, if someone believes that Elvis is secretly a lizard-man who is now pretending to be President Biden, then that could be responded to in simple, polite terms that aren't immediately condescending.
However, the scientific-community, literature, etc., would tend to be cumulatively dismissive and condescending toward the idea, failing to take it seriously. For example, such an idea wouldn't tend to get a mention in every article that mentions President Biden, even if proponents of the idea might continue to hold a strong interest in that belief.
This might lead to folks who'd hold such a belief continuing to find the literature dismissive and condescending toward their beliefs, even if no-one overtly makes rude comments on the topic.
But even avoiding rudeness is unrealistic. For example, someone who believes that Elvis is a lizard-man who is now pretending to be President Biden, and they start advertising their idea everywhere -- say on Wikipedia-articles and in comment-sections of articles -- how does one respond to that? If they're treated politely and accepted, then everything gets bogged down with non-sense. Eventually, everything's covered with conspiracy-theories about how President Biden's secretly a lizard-man, or a fish-man, or a real man pretending to be a lizard-man, or an alien pretending to be an AI pretending to be a fish, etc., and then everything's just noise.