Aggressive rebuttals can push curious people toward pseudo-scientific views
Evidence
Curious people also often have less factual knowledge about a topic than others who have been building their worldview on it for years. They are therefore more amenable to fact-based arguments, especially since they are basically still in the process of testing relatively newly absorbed information for its reliability. They may even react, perhaps only secretly, with relief to a well-founded debunking to the ideas they have just adopted, which may still be a little scary to them themselves. At the same time, they are often not yet familiar with the controversies that arise with the topic. Aggressive or emotional contradiction can therefore more easily upset or anger them and lead to a non-scientific position being perceived, if not as factually well supported, then as more likeable. — Holm Gero Hümmler, Ulrike Schiesser, Fact and Prejudice, 295
Categorization
- XREF: Mirrors the backfire effect and reactance findings from Chapter 1, plus general persuasion literature showing hostile style strengthens weak attitudes. — connects to: Studying conspiracy beliefs itself triggers defensive backlash from believers. — Joseph E. Uscinski and Joseph M. Parent, American Conspiracy Theories, 154; Science’s self-correcting attitude is a model for resisting post-truth. — Lee McIntyre, Post-Truth, 332
Related
- Studying conspiracy beliefs itself triggers defensive backlash from believers. (similarity 0.84)
- Science’s self-correcting attitude is a model for resisting post-truth. (similarity 0.81)
- Conspiracy theorists on Twitter express more anger and swearing than science communicators (similarity 0.79)
- Ideologues pair extreme doubt toward disfavored facts with total credulity toward favored ones (similarity 0.79)
- Motivated reasoning makes people reject information threatening their values and beliefs. (similarity 0.79)
- Believers view science as fixed dogma while seeing beliefs as personal experience (similarity 0.78)