# Facts won't change your mind about anything **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 19, 2015, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293 "2015-01-19T17:29:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2015, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/321 "2015-08-27T19:46:49Z")
As for Trenberth: [http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/predictions\_of\_climate.html](http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/predictions_of_climate.html) > [@](#): > > We will adapt to climate change. The question is whether it will be planned or not? How disruptive and how much loss of life will there be because we did not adequately plan for the climate changes that are already occurring? Just about what the point was then and it remains so today. > **[Jeff Masters and Kevin Trenberth on El Nino and Ocean Heat](https://thinc.blog/2015/03/05/jeff-masters-and-kevin-trenberth-on-el-nino-and-ocean-heat/)** > > It’s great when an El Nino comes around, (see below) and you just happen to have current footage of two acknowledged global experts on the subject. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for … As usual even scientists that did constructive criticism then are not telling us that we should dismiss the whole thing. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2015, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/322 "2015-08-28T20:35:42Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > See? He was calling a link and quotes from Kevin E. Trenberth “nonsense”. No, he is calling your misinterpretation of Trenberth (and taking his quotes out of context) nonsense. Let’s take what Trenberth says and apply it to something less controversial, like the seasonal cycle. What Trenberth is effectively saying is that if you run the models without carefully initializing them to current conditions, you are going to have a very hard time predicting if this winter is going to be colder or warmer than average here in Rochester. (In fact, as it turns out, even if you try to initialize them, it is a difficult task to make these predictions because they are quite sensitive to any errors in the initial conditions.) What you seem to be thinking he is saying is analogous to the claim that if you run the models without carefully initializing them to current conditions, you have no clue whether this winter in Rochester will be colder or warmer than the summer…or even roughly how much colder or warmer than the summer it will be. That is a big distinction: There are things that are sensitive to the initial conditions and there are things that are not. By failing to understand distinctions such as this, you are making a complete mess of understanding what Trenberth is saying. [There are a couple other points in Trenberth’s piece, such as the fact that the models make projections rather than predictions because we are talking about “What if…?” scenarios. A climate model can’t predict how much coal humans are going to burn, so we have to come up with various scenarios of how our societies evolve in the use of energy, etc., and then see what the climate models project will happen given these assumptions about our future greenhouse gas emissions.] ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2015, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/323 "2015-09-02T02:42:41Z")
Getting back to the topic, I just ran across this, which seems to be from three years ago? [Why Smart People Deny Climate Change](http://bigthink.com/Mind-Matters/why-smart-people-deny-climate-change) > [@](#): > > Dan Kahan and his co-authors compared 1,540 Americans’ views on the risks of global warming with their scientific literacy and ability to reason logically and mathematically. Result: Higher scientific literacy and reasoning skill correlated with lower levels of concern about climate change. I don’t know if the study is real. > [@](#): > > The effect wasn’t large, but according to the standard catechism of environmentalism, it should not exist at all. That catechism holds that concern about global warming rises as people are exposed to “the facts” (and, therefore, that lack of concern about the climate is a product of enemy propaganda, lack of education, or some sort of neurotic reaction). Interesting. It goes on for a while, but the next paragraph, it’s priceless. > [@](#): > > In other words, the study reminds those concerned about climate change that other people are as real as they are—that those who deprecate or deny global warming are not necessarily working with an inferior set of mental tools, nor with bad information. Nor are we who disagree with them superior beings who have a greater ability to overcome the mind’s built-in biases. **Therefore, bombarding the other side with scientific facts will not change their minds.** ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2015, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/324 "2015-09-02T03:03:45Z")
> [@](#): > > Kahan suggests some practical strategies that, to my eye, amount to filleting the cultural markers out of a scientific argument. If you want to persuade a hierarchical-individualist that climate change must be reckoned with, he suggests, mention that geoengineering and nuclear power could be part of the solution. I wonder if that will change some minds at last then. Other studies I have seen point at political affiliation as the most likely reason for why the facts will not work, there is an ideology behind the denial. [http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/politics-and-global-warming-spring-2014/#sthash.LzxkA1ni.dpuf](http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/politics-and-global-warming-spring-2014/#sthash.LzxkA1ni.dpuf) > [@](#): > > The study also finds that while Democrats are more convinced that human-caused global warming is happening and more supportive of climate and energy policies than Republicans, there are deep divisions within the Republican Party. In many respects, liberal/moderate Republicans – about a third of the Republican party – are relatively similar to moderate/conservative Democrats, while conservative Republicans often express views about global warming that are distinctly different than the rest of the American public. > > For example, among registered voters: > > • 88% of Democrats, 59% of Independents and 61% of liberal/moderate Republicans think global warming is happening, compared to only 28% of conservative Republicans; > > • 81% of Democrats and 51% of liberal/moderate Republicans are worried about global warming, compared to only 19% of conservative Republicans; > > • 82% of Democrats and 65% of liberal/moderate Republicans support strict carbon dioxide emission limits on existing coal-fired power plants to reduce global warming and improve public health, compared to only 31% of conservative Republicans. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2015, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/325 "2015-09-02T03:17:47Z")
> [@](#): > > Environmentalists who spend their time trying to figure out why they are morally, intellectually or scientifically superior to their opponents are, themselves, using climate change as a tribal marker of identity. Such people are likely—just like their opponents—to reject science that doesn’t fit their received opinions. [Why Smart People Deny Climate Change - Big Think](http://bigthink.com/Mind-Matters/why-smart-people-deny-climate-change) It’s funny, because eve if all that is a fact, it won’t matter. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2015, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/326 "2015-09-02T03:39:29Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > [Why Smart People Deny Climate Change - Big Think](http://bigthink.com/Mind-Matters/why-smart-people-deny-climate-change) > > It’s funny, because eve if all that is a fact, it won’t matter. And that shows another problem with the article\*, it goes once again for the idea that it is based on religion, as usual it is the most used accusations by proponents of woo woo when they can not get the experts and scientists to agree in their woo. - The first one was to not notice the ideological reasons that are a big part of the denial. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2015, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/327 "2015-10-10T13:51:16Z")
It seems this problem, that facts just won’t matter, is a lot older than I thought. > [@](#): > > In his book Rhetoric, which is said to be “the most important single work on persuasion ever written”, the Greek philosopher Aristotle divides the art of persuasion into two distinct forms, dialectic and rhetoric, concerning which he makes a very important observation. I can’t stress enough how vital this observation is or how helpful it is to make the effort to understand it and take it to heart: > > “Before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct.” > > “There are people whom one cannot instruct.” One of Man’s greatest thinkers, a brilliant teacher who tutored one of history’s greatest generals, Alexander the Great, knew that there were people even he could not teach. He didn’t say it was difficult to get through to them and he didn’t say it would take a long time to instruct them, he concluded that it could not be done — at least not with mere knowledge. However, he went on to point out that it is possible to convince them to change their minds, only that one cannot do so by presenting them with knowledge. Instead, it is necessary to manipulate them and to play upon their emotions in order to get them to change their minds. He even provided detailed instructions on how to go about communicating with these people who make decisions on the basis of their feelings rather than their logical capacities. SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police by Vox Day ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2015, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/328 "2015-10-10T14:01:07Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > It seems this problem, that facts just won’t matter, is a lot older than I thought. > SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police > by Vox Day Yay, white supremacist quotes! How about David Duke next? ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2015, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/329 "2015-10-10T14:04:54Z")
I don’t know who the hell Vox Day even is. It’s the quote “Before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct.” that got my attention. (I also didn’t know what the hell a SJWs was either) So Vox Day is a white supremacist? Seriously? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2015, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/330 "2015-10-10T14:09:16Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > So Vox Day is a white supremacist? Seriously? [Yep](http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2012/12/03/vox-day-is-a-white-nationalist-whod-have-thought/). Other examples are very easy to find. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2015, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/331 "2015-10-10T14:10:53Z")
(after rapid Googling) > **[Vox Day](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vox_Day)** > > Theodore Robert Beale (born August 21, 1968), also known as Vox Day, is an American far-right activist, writer, publisher, and video game designer. He has been described as a white supremacist, a misogynist, and part of the alt-right. The Wall Street Journal described him as "the most despised man in science fiction." > Beale started in video game development, which led to him writing science fiction and social commentary with a focus on issues of religion, race and gender. He became active in ... Oh great. While it doesn’t say he is a racist, he is definitely not an unbiased source. He is a Christian for crying out loud. Sorry Aristotle, we can’t use your wisdom, the source is a bad person. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2015, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/332 "2015-10-10T14:13:35Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > (after rapid Googling) > > [Vox Day - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vox_Day) > > Oh great. While it doesn’t say he is a racist, he is definitely not an unbiased source. He is a Christian for crying out loud. > > Sorry Aristotle, we can’t use your wisdom, the source is a bad person. Whether or not he’s a Christian, he’s someone who calls black people (or mixed race people) [“half-savages”](http://amalelmohtar.com/2013/06/13/calling-for-the-expulsion-of-theodore-beale-from-sfwa/). ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2015, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/333 "2015-10-10T14:16:23Z")
Which has nothing to do with what Aristotle wrote about. Or maybe it does. Because here is another case where facts don’t matter, because the person who brought the information up is a bad man, we should ignore what Aristotle wrote thousands of years ago. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2015, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/334 "2015-10-10T14:18:23Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Which has nothing to do with what Aristotle wrote about. Or maybe it does. > > Because here is another case where facts don’t matter, because the person who brought the information up is a bad man, we should ignore what Aristotle wrote thousands of years ago. I’m fine with Aristotle. I just thought you might want to know that the guy you were quoting was a white supremacist. No big deal – use that information however you’d like. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2015, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/335 "2015-10-10T14:20:18Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’m fine with Aristotle. I just thought you might want to know that the guy you were quoting was a white supremacist. I didn’t really care about him, it was his discussion of people that facts will make no impression on. That he seems to be one of those people, now that is ironic. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2015, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/336 "2015-10-10T14:26:10Z")
Here is the quote in context. > [@](#): > > Rhetoric is useful (1) because things that are true and things that are just have a natural tendency to prevail over their opposites, so that if the decisions of judges are not what they ought to be, the defeat must be due to the speakers themselves, and they must be blamed accordingly. Moreover, (2) before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct. Here, then, we must use, as our modes of persuasion and argument, notions possessed by everybody, as we observed in the Topics when dealing with the way to handle a popular audience. > **[American Rhetoric: Aristotle's Rhetoric - Selected Moments](https://www.americanrhetoric.com/aristotleonrhetoric.htm)** > > Selected text from Aristotle's Rhetoric on the nature and function of Rhetoric This changes my view of the opinions mentioned in the OP ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2015, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/337 "2015-10-10T15:56:51Z")
Very interesting and prescient quotes from a wise old philosopher. It’s almost like Aristotle could see into the 21st century. Here are two of his observations from the above quote, followed by corresponding extracts from the cover story of _New Scientist_, 31 October 2011, titled “Science in America: Selling the truth”. The parallels are quite amazing, highlighted for convenient comparison. [QUOTE=Aristotle] … before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and **there are people whom one cannot instruct.** [/QUOTE] In March [2011], an impressive array of climate scientists [addressed Congress at the invitation of John Holdren], but their efforts seemed only to inflame the scepticism of Republicans opposed to regulation of emissions. For researchers who study how people form their opinions, and how we are influenced by the messages we receive, it was all too predictable. Holdren’s prescription was a classic example of the “deficit model” of science communication, which assumes that mistrust of unwelcome scientific findings stems from a lack of knowledge. Ergo, if you provide more facts, scepticism should melt away. This approach appeals to people trained to treat evidence as the ultimate arbiter of truth. The problem is that in many cases, **it just doesn’t work. Perversely, just giving people more information can sometimes polarise views and cause sceptics to harden their line.** [QUOTE=Aristotle] Here, then, **we must use, as our modes of persuasion and argument, notions possessed by everybody** , as we observed in the Topics when dealing with the way to handle a popular audience. [/QUOTE] These findings suggest that one way to change people’s minds is to **find someone they identify with** to argue the case … The appeal of this story to those on the political right illustrates another key finding: **how the message is framed in relation to the cultural biases** of the intended recipient is crucial to its persuasiveness. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2015, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/338 "2015-10-10T16:14:06Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Very interesting and prescient quotes from a wise old philosopher. Considering the new evidence from MRI studies, which show the brain literally turns off the circuits, so that the facts never even reach the part of the brain that could make a decision about them, but instead the anger part of the brain lights up, his insights into human nature actually are backed up by science. Here’s a bunch of links for anyone willing to consider facts in this matter. None of them will matter to some people. > [@](#): > > “[A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.](http://www.motherjones.com/files/lfestinger.pdf)” > [@](#): > > [“The general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.](http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/)” > [@](#): > > [In other words, facts sometimes pose cognitive challenges. We don’t like those challenges, we’d rather stick with the stories. So we like facts – but we like stories more. And we don’t like facts that interfere with the stories, especially when the stories are well formed, vivid stories that help define our identity and affiliation. It’s easier for many to simply discount the facts.](https://www.quora.com/Why-do-facts-not-matter-to-some-people) > [@](#): > > [Reasoning is actually suffused with emotion (or what researchers often call “affect”). Not only are the two inseparable, but our positive or negative feelings about people, things, and ideas arise much more rapidly than our conscious thoughts, in a matter of milliseconds—fast enough to detect with an EEG device, but long before we’re aware of it.](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney) > [@](#): > > [In a perfect world, every conversation we have about childhood vaccines, GMOs, alternative medicine, and global warming would be based on a set of facts agreed on by a majority of scientists working in those spheres.](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2013/02/21/why-facts-dont-matter/#.Vhk16vlViko) > [@](#): > > We’d like to believe that most of what we know is accurate and that if presented with facts to prove we’re wrong, we would sheepishly accept the truth and change our views accordingly. > > A new body of research out of the University of Michigan suggests that’s not what happens, that we base our opinions on beliefs and when presented with contradictory facts, [we adhere to our original belief even more strongly](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128490874). This last one has a phrase that is amazingly insightful. > [@](#): > > Neuroscience is uncovering a bracing view of what’s happening below the radar of our conscious awareness, [but that makes your life no more “helpless, ignorant, and zombie-like” than whatever your life is now](http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/29/neuroscience-david-eagleman-raymond-tallis). Just knowing your brain is actually preventing you from seeing or hearing facts you don’t like, does nothing to stop this from happening. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2015, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/339 "2015-10-10T17:38:17Z")
Of course, as noted in my first quote above, the persuasiveness of an evidence-based approach tends to be limited to those who understand it, and “… to people trained to treat evidence as the ultimate arbiter of truth.” Not so much those who lack the education or scientific grounding to assess evidence, or those financially motivated to reject facts that threaten their interests, like those in my example and the powerful constituency they represent. It’s often more instructive and revealing to study the vested interests and motivations around _ **why** _ people reject facts than to study the abstract psychology of how it works. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293.md?page=16)