Harari: Facts and stories

Let me tell you a little story about a man named Harari. This article fact-checks him. It accuses him of being loose with the facts in the name of popularization. So it wants to set the record straight. But is this fact-check itself a good story?

The author also notes that "in this day and age, good storytelling is more necessary, but riskier, than ever before." He also admits that "I know how difficult it is to spin complex issues into appealing and accurate storytelling." It requires "simple, emotionally persuasive language" that is "vivid and gripping." All of which is validated by legitimate cognitive science.

So while indeed we must be accurate with our facts, that in itself doesn't get an effective message across to us non-specialists. We are the ones who need this information most to be more well-informed citizens and voters. So scientists also need to know how to persuade with a simple, vivid, emotional story. 

And scientists aren't very good at that. At least this author admits it. Many scientists scoff and dismiss storytelling altogether, even when validated by cognitive science. They scoff at the latter too as pseudo-science. Hence they stay in their isolated and smug communities that have little to no influence on the general public. Which is a shame, since we need the general public to be so informed as to combat the very real enemy of science itself, our growing fascism.