When having coffee with your family, you are offered energized water. On Twitter you discuss with vaccination opponents. The WhatsApp kitagroup discusses zodiac signs, the pharmacy sells you globules, the neighbor proselytizes for her guru, and the news is once again about demonstrations by right-wing extremists.

Everywhere you encounter conspiracy myths, superstition, esotericism, pseudoscience and Co. and you want to respond to them - while remaining as factual as possible, clarify your position, provide facts, but also not unnecessarily provoke or overload. In addition, you do not want to hurt your counterpart, but to encourage him to rethink. But how do you do that?

If you are asking yourself this question, read "Fact and Prejudice". Understand why we are driven by emotions and most information bounces off us. Read experiences and tips from interviews with professional (science) communicators. Then follow different people through their own rethinking processes: What convinces an alternative medicine practitioner to leave non-evidence-based medicine behind? What was the deciding factor for a former vaccination opponent to have her children vaccinated after all? What helps members of appropriative organizations to get out? What moves a celebrated medium to break away from esotericism?