So, I was listening to a This American Life on the way into the office this morning, and there was a discussion about having a scientist convincing a global warming skeptic that global warming was real. And the interesting thing, to me, was that the scientist made an argument by citing facts, measurements, trends, and scientific consensus, and it had absolutely no impact on the skeptic.
Which was, I thought, patently obvious.
The problem was that the skeptic had already discussed how or why they were skeptical, and the underlying reasoning was simply that there are “two sides to every story,” and the skepticism came from the inability to accurately assess the merit of the arguments that were being made.
But so the interesting thing to me was that the scientist utterly failed to have an impact because they weren’t able to assess the argument that needed to be made. And holy cow, I’m guilty of this at times. But you can’t convince someone who doesn’t believe in facts with facts.
So what do you do? I’m not sure, honestly – because ultimately what you need to do is you need to teach someone how to think. If you ever get into an argument and someone says “there are two sides to every story,” you’ve already lost because saying that indicates that that person has no ability to give weight to an argument.
But I think the fundamental point is that you have to start with the fundamentals. You have to teach people how to judge how to tell good information from bad, and that anyone can have an opinion, but those opinions aren’t all worth the same. Which seems to be generally where Democratic politicians fail – you can’t argue policy or facts without teaching your opponents the fundamentals – and it’s a hell of a lot easier to teach someone to be willfully ignorant and believe whatever they want to believe. 😛
Yeah, that post went nowhere.