In many fields, science-based professionals have recognized that “the amount of time and effort needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.”
It takes almost no time to misinterpret a research study, take things out of context, come up with crazy hypotheses, or even make up “facts” that aren’t true. On the other hand, correcting inaccuracies in the conspiracy theory arguments can take an enormous amount of time. Often, conspiracy theory arguments contain a hint of truth that can make them sound quite convincing. This is why some professionals have been embarrassed in live “debates” when they were obviously on the right side of the science.
In other fields, many scientists have taken the position that it doesn’t make any sense to have live debates with conspiracy theorists. A data-based, carefully thought-through argument takes a lot of time. It is unreasonable to expect anyone to respond in real time when the other side just makes crap up. It’s much better to do your debunking in writing.
This problem will often put BCBAs in a tough spot. We simply can’t do everything in writing. In most cases, decisions on client recommendations are made at meetings. It is easy for the conspiracy theorist to present complete nonsense that can be very hard to debunk on the spot. This can lead to negative outcomes. For example, the client may end up with non-science-based therapies that don’t help their life. Another negative outcome is the BCBA can lose the support of the team, and be thought of as a “BCBA-hole” when coming out hard against the recommendation.
The solution to the problem is difficult. First, recommendations not to be a “BCBA-hole” are appropriate; I wish someone would have told Barry from the Bronx 30 years ago. On the other hand, don’t assume that good social skills or iron-clad reason and logic will solve this problem. To see why good social skills and logic won’t handle this problem, just watch Anderson try that. Those skills are necessary, but not sufficient.
Some BCBAs (including me) have argued for a data-based approach to this problem. “Let’s first collect data with intervention X and then without intervention X and look at the differences in performance.” I have done this many times, and although it sounds simple, it can add many, many hours of work. It can be effective—sometimes–but not usually. Why not? The conspiracy theorist can easily come up with multiple bogus excuses for why intervention X wasn’t effective and what should have been done differently. That doesn’t take barely any time at all. You’ll have them state the requirements in advance? Again, see what Anderson thinks about that. Only rarely should we take on a commitment to “debunking” work. That’s an enormous amount of time and effort and will rarely be effective.
In my view, there is only one good solution to this problem–to provide dramatically effective applied behavior analysis services. Effective means not only that the behavior changed, but that the intervention made a significant difference in the person’s life. If you’ve done that, in all likelihood the team will come around. If you haven’t, no social skills, debate, or testing will make one bit of difference.
P.S. – Anderson is wearing an amazing shirt in the video.