 It's essential that we listen to what the science says about how to communicate science. Social scientists and psychologists have been researching the most effective ways of communicating science for decades. So what does the evidence tell us? Ironically, the evidence says that communicating evidence isn't always effective with some people. A number of studies have found that presenting the science to people who deny the science just doesn't work. In fact, it can even make things worse, causing a backfire effect when the evidence threatens a person's worldview. In the case of climate science, only a small proportion of the public deny the science. The problem is that misconceptions coming from this vocal minority influence the rest of the public. Misconceptions matter. They lower public understanding and can reduce trust in science. So what does the science say is a solution to science denial? The answer comes from a line of psychological research that has been exploring this issue for over 50 years. The research has led to what's known as inoculation theory. This branch of psychology applies a metaphor of inoculation to knowledge. This gives insights into how to help people develop resistance to misconceptions. It does this by dividing information into two types, vitamins and flu shots. In inoculation theory, vitamins represent standard explanations of the science. Just as vitamins can give you the nutrients you need, explaining the science gives people the facts they need for a healthier understanding. But vitamins don't necessarily give you immunity to resist a virus. In the same way, an explanation of the science doesn't necessarily give you the tools to identify and make sense of a myth that distorts the science. For example, say you learn that global warming is happening and the planet is building up heat, then you come across the myth that global warming stopped in 1998. If you don't know what fallacy the myth uses, that makes it difficult to reconcile your understanding of the science with the myth. So what you also need is a flu shot. With vaccination, a flu shot is a weak version of a virus. In inoculation theory, you expose people to a weak version of the misconception. What I mean by this is you introduce the myth and then explain the fallacy that the myth uses to distort the science. Then when people encounter that misconception in the real world, they now have the tools to reconcile the myth with the fact. According to inoculation theory, just teaching the science isn't enough. You also need to expose people to myths in order to build resistance to misconceptions. Education researchers have independently come to a similar conclusion. The education research is based on the following principle expressed by Jonathan Osborne. Comprehending why ideas are wrong matters as much as understanding why some ideas may be right. Education isn't just about adding new information into students' heads. Learning is also about correcting misconceptions. So how do you do that? One of the most effective ways of teaching is an approach called misconception-based learning. This involves specifically mentioning myths and debunking them in the classroom. Standard format lectures restrict themselves to just conveying new facts and building new understanding. But a study conducted with first year psychology students found that lectures explicitly debunking misconceptions were twice as effective as standard format lectures in reducing the student's belief in the misconceptions. You need to directly challenge false ideas to get people to examine their preconceptions. Similarly, a study of a physics class found that students learnt the most when teachers directly addressed misconceptions, explaining how they were wrong. This research discovered a particularly interesting dynamic. Students were more confident about their physics knowledge after a standard format lecture, but they scored worse. After a misconception-based lecture, they were less confident about their knowledge, but they scored better. Not only do misconceptions interfere with new learning, they also instill false confidence. Exploring myths helps teach science more effectively, but it also teaches a little humility. So we've looked at several lines of research exploring how to respond to science than are, inoculation theory and misconception-based learning. Both lines of research have explored how to effectively respond to science than are, and both have come to the same answer. The key to reducing the influence of misconceptions is inoculation. Of course, we need to teach the science, but that's only half the picture. We also need to explain how that science can be distorted. By teaching the fallacies of science denial, we neutralise its influence.