Are you dreading the moment when your crazy uncle brings up climate change at dinner? You are not alone. Thousands of students are heading home this week expecting a relative to say something about vaccines being dangerous, climate change being a hoax, or some other topic where the science is clear but the politics are messy.
But this year feels different. Someone might say that RFK Jr. is doing great things for health. Or that cutting the Department of Education makes sense. Or that NASA and the National Science Foundation waste money.
I know if this happens at my family’s dinner table I will sit there, quietly chewing my turkey. But is that the best way to respond?
You cannot advance mining research while cutting funding to geology agencies, send people to Mars while laying off JPL engineers, understand climate change while making climate science a political target, or keep people healthy while cutting vaccine research. But they do not see the contradiction. They see waste, bureaucracy, and scientists they do not trust.
And then someone pulls out their phone and shows you an article that claims to prove vaccines cause autism, or show the signs of climate change are all natural. You know the article is wrong. You know that study it references has been debunked by hundreds of others. But what do you say?
You cannot just respond with “most studies disagree.” That sounds defensive. No one will want to listen, and playing defense gets tiring fast.
Here is the hard truth: most people do not understand the scientific process. They do not know how peer review works. They do not know the difference between a study and a meta-analysis. They do not know that science builds knowledge slowly, through replication and correction. They just know what they read online, or what they watch on TV. What they read, hear, and watch confirms what they already believe.
So you cannot argue using facts; their minds are made up. But ignoring them does not work either. Silence lets misinformation spread unchallenged. There is a third option. A healthier way to engage.
Start by understanding what they actually care about. When someone says RFK Jr. has good ideas, they are celebrating someone who questions authority.
Those are legitimate concerns, and you can acknowledge them without “losing” the argument. You can say “I agree we need transparency in public health” without agreeing that vaccines cause autism.
When someone says we should cut NASA’s budget, ask what they think NASA does. Most people think NASA just sends rockets to space. They do not know NASA studies the climate, funds research that has built tools like GPS, and helps farmers predict the weather ensuring healthy crop growth. Tell them what would actually be lost. JPL just laid off hundreds of engineers. People who spent decades building expertise, and cannot just be rehired when you decide you want to go to Mars after all. They will be gone, and their knowledge and experience with them.
When someone shows you that article linking vaccines/Tylenol/fluoride to autism, do not immediately say it is wrong. Ask where they found it. Ask what made it convincing, and listen. Then explain how science actually works. Not condescendingly, but factually.
One study can find anything. That is why we do not trust one study. We look for patterns across hundreds of studies. That study about vaccines and autism has been examined by dozens of other research teams; none found the same result. The original study was retracted, and the doctor lost his medical license.
That does not mean scientists are always right. It means science is self-correcting. Bad studies get caught, and good ones get confirmed.
With climate change, the same approach works. Often, the concern is not the science. People worry about job losses. Government control. Economic costs. Tax increases. Frame your conversation around things they care about: renewable energy creates jobs, energy independence is national security, and coastal flooding costs money — whether you believe in climate change or not. The key is that you are creating doubt in their misinformation, not certainty in your position.
Instead of saying “that is wrong,” say, “I wonder why other studies found something different.” Instead of saying “the science is clear,” say “I am not sure that this article tells the whole story.”
Give them permission to question their own source without making them feel stupid.
Also, admit what you do not know. If someone asks about a vaccine ingredient and you do not know what it is used for, say so. Then look it up together. Pull out your phone. Find a credible source. Show them how you evaluate information.
Here is what does not work: getting angry. Getting condescending. Calling them stupid. Laughing at their sources. That would make anyone dig in harder.
Not every conversation will go well. Some people want to fight. Some have tied their identity to rejecting science. Know when to stop. If it is getting heated, change the subject. If they are not listening, let it go. But when you can engage, engage thoughtfully. Do not data dump, condescend, and do not ignore. Go home. Be patient. Be kind. Do not let misinformation win by default. But also do not let it ruin your holiday. The science will still be true tomorrow. Your family will still be your family. Do your best, then let it go.
