I have come to the conclusion that thinking about convincing everybody of everything just does not work. Like, at all. With "everything" I mean all those many, many big and small things, from "facts" to flat earth to this virus to climate etc. etc., and endless list.
First, it just does not matter at all what most people think. The scientific way would be to develop a good model to see whose opinions actually matter, directly or indirectly (network effects).
Second, there is an endless stream of deaths and births. If you look at the rate that you can possibly achieve to educate people and - far more important - to develop trust, you have to set this "rate of education and trust development" vs. the "rate of exchange in the population". Then it's easy to see that it's an unsustainable idea to try to educate everyone.
Third, what really matters is trust, education about a particular subject comes in with significant distance. The vast majority of people who "believe in [evolution, corona, 'science'" are actually just as clueless as those who don't. That's not criticism, that's just human brain capacity. Ask any real science questions, e.g. from freshman tests in college, and see how many of the "believers" are able to answer.
So I think a better approach is to not dwell on the problem that "x amount of people don't believe in...". It's the wrong problem. It is not possible to solve, unless you have a static extremely long-lived society. Instead, create a system that acknowledges the problem and finds solutions. Like, don't try to convince each and every person of the dangers of a pandemic. Just create rules and enforce them, period. Of course, this works best when people trust the "system", government etc. But solving that trust issue is the far better solution instead of hand-wringing about people's "stupidity", which I think is missing the point completely. There is no way around this so-called "stupidity", and IMO the far bigger issue is a lack of trust.
I'm with Sherlock Holmes and his famous statement about (sort of, don't remember exact words) "what do I care about the solar system and if the earth revolves around the sun?". If somebody works as a butcher, for example, their views of the solar system and of corona should not matter one bit. (Yes they elect politicians - but what does that have to do with anything?)
Yes of course it would be nice with more people knowing more stuff. I myself took lots and lots of (uni) courses way outside my own field just for fun. However, I think looking at that as a solution is looking at a non-solution and a distraction. That would be a bonus to make things better, not what makes it all work at all.
After careful and measured consideration, HN comes out swinging for technocracy.
I'm shocked.
(Meanwhile, half the COVID-19 threads are people pissed off because the US did take a technocratic approach to mask recommendations and they hate it because programmers don't get to be part of the inner circle of public health decision makers.)
First, it just does not matter at all what most people think. The scientific way would be to develop a good model to see whose opinions actually matter, directly or indirectly (network effects).
Second, there is an endless stream of deaths and births. If you look at the rate that you can possibly achieve to educate people and - far more important - to develop trust, you have to set this "rate of education and trust development" vs. the "rate of exchange in the population". Then it's easy to see that it's an unsustainable idea to try to educate everyone.
Third, what really matters is trust, education about a particular subject comes in with significant distance. The vast majority of people who "believe in [evolution, corona, 'science'" are actually just as clueless as those who don't. That's not criticism, that's just human brain capacity. Ask any real science questions, e.g. from freshman tests in college, and see how many of the "believers" are able to answer.
So I think a better approach is to not dwell on the problem that "x amount of people don't believe in...". It's the wrong problem. It is not possible to solve, unless you have a static extremely long-lived society. Instead, create a system that acknowledges the problem and finds solutions. Like, don't try to convince each and every person of the dangers of a pandemic. Just create rules and enforce them, period. Of course, this works best when people trust the "system", government etc. But solving that trust issue is the far better solution instead of hand-wringing about people's "stupidity", which I think is missing the point completely. There is no way around this so-called "stupidity", and IMO the far bigger issue is a lack of trust.
I'm with Sherlock Holmes and his famous statement about (sort of, don't remember exact words) "what do I care about the solar system and if the earth revolves around the sun?". If somebody works as a butcher, for example, their views of the solar system and of corona should not matter one bit. (Yes they elect politicians - but what does that have to do with anything?)
Yes of course it would be nice with more people knowing more stuff. I myself took lots and lots of (uni) courses way outside my own field just for fun. However, I think looking at that as a solution is looking at a non-solution and a distraction. That would be a bonus to make things better, not what makes it all work at all.