Frank is right when he says that there are a whole host of reasons why people believe, and to convince them we need to meet them on their own turf. If anecdotes convince people to believe, anecdotes will be more effective in convincing them not to believe. (I should clarify that I’m summarising what Frank says, these are my words.)
As an example of a campaign that was not effective, Frank cited 1023.
On the point of 1023 being ineffective, I disagree.
What Frank was saying is that the main message of the 1023 campaign is that “there’s nothing in it”. Homeopaths know there's nothing in it. People who have been shunning real medicine in favour of homeopathy for years know there's nothing in it.
And people who already know there’s nothing in it are not going to be convinced by being told that there’s nothing in it. Frank’s right here - but he’s very wrong when he says that this makes it an ineffective campaign.
A tiny percentage of the population shares our skeptical viewpoint. A larger, yet still small percentage; practice homeopathy.
In the middle sits the vast majority, ready to be plucked by either camp. They go to dinner parties and people tell them they’ve visited a homeopath. They walk past homeopathic practices on their way to work. They’re mostly rational, but don’t know what homeopathy is. They may know there isn’t much evidence to show that it works, but they don’t realise that it’s been tested time after time and shown to be ineffective. They don’t realise that it lacks an active ingredient altogether. They don’t realise that it’s a thoroughly discredited absurdity. They don't realise that there's nothing in it.
It is these people who will be convinced by 1023.
If you’re trying to convince as many people as possible, and are within an environment where the vast majority of people are ignorant yet open minded, only a complete fool would target those who already know about the subject, but are so close minded that they ignore the knowledge they already possess.
I have had a couple of opportunities to speak to open-minded, intelligent audiences on this subject. Most people don’t know what it is. Simply explaining it is all that is required to convince them, completely, that it’s nonsense. It takes minutes.
1023 did this on a mass scale. It was a beautiful, engaging demonstration. Hundreds of people took 42 times the recommended dosage of so called "drugs". This impersonation of a crazed religious sect grasped the attention of newspaper reporters. How can a paper not report a mass drug overdose?
The message was clear: we’re able to do something that seems implausible because we’re using implausible medicine. Or - we’ll be fine: there’s nothing in it.
Of course you won’t convince a homeopath. But that homeopath needs customers. And because of 1023, homeopaths are now operating in an environment where many more people know they’re peddling pills that contain nothing. Their customers are socialising with more people who know the pills contain nothing.
Grow this simple understanding throughout the population and you create an environment where homeopathy will struggle to survive. 1023 did that beautifully.
Frank said people aren’t convinced by facts. Telling a story is in many cases more convincing. So I’ll end with a story. Here it is:
Before I was convinced by facts, I once suggested to someone that they might try visiting a homeopath.
Posts
