Balancing Science, Belief, and Humanity in Difficult Conversations
I’ve had a couple of fascinating conversations recently with people in difficult circumstances who view the world in ways that don’t always align with scientific or fact-based thinking. Their ideas, strategies, and beliefs may seem unusual—even illogical—but they are deeply personal. These beliefs are often core to their identity, values, and sense of agency, especially when they’re seeking solutions in times of vulnerability.
This raises an important question: how do you balance being a scientist, professional, or expert on the one hand, and being deeply human and empathetic on the other?
The Risk of Undermining Agency
It’s tempting to rely on qualifications, experience, or authority as a kind of “top trump,” stepping into conversations with directive certainty. But in healthcare, or any field where people’s wellbeing is at stake, that approach can backfire.
If someone feels their values, beliefs, or identity are being challenged, they may resist—even if your evidence is sound. Push too hard, and you risk undermining not only their confidence but also their ability to engage in positive change.
When Beliefs Clash with Responsibility
At the same time, some beliefs can be problematic, even dangerous. As professionals, we may feel both a moral and professional responsibility to correct misunderstandings that could harm the individual—or others.
The challenge lies in how we do this. Conversations often operate on multiple levels:
The matter at hand
The person’s thoughts and feelings about that matter
The negotiation between ideas that matter deeply to them, ideas of little consequence, and ideas that might be harmful
Navigating this requires both skill and sensitivity.
The Middle Ground
Too directive, and you disempower. Too hands-off, and you fail to share expertise that could make a difference. The balance is to co-create options, offering guidance without ridicule or condescension. This way, people retain agency, and you remain a trusted voice rather than an opposing force.
It’s less about telling people what to do and more about helping them explore options, weigh consequences, and make choices with dignity intact.
Style and Substance
This is where “style versus substance” becomes critical. It’s not just what you say—it’s the way that you say it. You can passionately argue that the earth is flat, but that doesn’t make it true. Equally, mocking someone who believes it won’t change their mind.
Most real-world situations are far more nuanced than that. People may have latched onto fragments of truth, half-understood scientific findings, or information taken out of context. Your role is to bring context back in without crushing belief.
Simplicity, Choice, and the Paradox
Humans crave simplicity. Nuance, research, and complexity are often unwelcome. Yet, offering only a binary choice—“right” versus “wrong”—is rarely effective. Too many options, on the other hand, can overwhelm.
The sweet spot lies in offering a manageable range of possibilities, framed with empathy and respect. Enough choice to feel empowered, but not so much that the individual feels lost or paralysed.
Final Thoughts
Working at the intersection of science, belief, and human experience is never easy. It requires patience, humility, and the ability to navigate paradoxes. But when handled well, it allows us to uphold our professional responsibility while honouring the humanity of those we serve.
In the end, the goal is not to win an argument, but to build trust—and through that trust, create the conditions for real, sustainable change.