I like to think I examine all sides of issues and keep an open mind for the real truth, but this article makes me wonder how objective I actually am. It’s really quite fascinating, and makes me think twice about some of the topics I’m opinionated and passionate about. I thought Dopers would appreciate it.
No.
Yes, you all are. Not me of course, but the rest of you…definitely. 
(don’t usually go in for Mother Jones but will check out the article when I get home tonight)
-XT
I’m biased towards science and skepticism. So I generally don’t have a problem. 
I just finished the article. The jist is “using facts in an attempt to convince someone against their deeply held beliefs often fails.”
My response: Duh!
Well, the link is loading and loading and loading. I am afraid even the best of us let our own interests distort our view of the truth.
It’s obvious that Mother Jones doesn’t understand the difference between fact and opinion, not to mention what a fact actually is.
Facts can be true to varying degrees and in varying ways. We’re taught in school that the earth revolves around the sun. For centuries, people were taught that the sun revolved around the earth. But now, of course, we know better.
Well, no. The ancients were as right as we are, and as wrong as are. Any two bodies in space orbit each other is an even better way to put it. And we can approximate the relatiopnship between them with math. In short, what we learned from authorities was right in one way and wrong in another.
Now, I think Jenny Mcarthy is dead wrong on vaccines. I think she’s mistakenly using a bad inference when we have good studies and data available. However, I do acknowledge that studies and data can be wrong, that they are facts but not reality. Nor do I expect everyone to interpret facts the way I do. The brain does not fool us, but it does use different weighting, and sometimes criteria that others simply can’t understand at all.
Reasoning is not logic. It is emotion, because it involves value. No value, no reason. Not, “is hard,” but outright impossible, because no fact can ever have a point without a frame of reason. The entire article isn’t exactly worthless, but it’s way overblown and in the end boils down to nothing more than, “If you want to argue to people, you have to find a way to talk to them.” To which I reply, are you only just now getting this, Mother Jones? No wonder you suck so badly and your entire cause has been discredited.
The “Creation Museum” exists. No shit we’re too biased.
You are wrong. The Earth does revolve around the Sun, or at least around a point well within the Sun’s core. The Sun does not revolve around the Earth to any meaningful extent - the influence from Jupiter alone is 1,500 times greater.
It’s the difference between believing Pi = 3.1415 and believing Pi = 57. The former might not be precisely true, but the latter’s not even in the right ballpark.
Sorta. Had my personal politics changed mostly by reading people who laughed at what I believed, then I laughed, and then pretty soon I no longer believed it.
What you’re missing is that there’s a big difference between a slight error, and a major failure. For example, if I were to say the earth is round, I would be wrong. But at the same time, I wouldn’t be anywhere near as wrong as those who would claim it to be flat.
Reality is not subjective.
That’s just a theory.
'K, Prove it.
Quoth the late, great Better Off Ted:
I like to think I’m a skeptic who uses scientific evidence to figure out what’s true, but I’m willing to consider that I’ve been wrong on certain things. Granted, I’m still 99.9% certain that homeopathy, chiropractic, vaccine panic, and almost all other woo are complete bullshit, but it’s still something to think about. 
And yet, it is a fact. It is a compeltely unassailable fact. We think the facts we use now better describe reality. We also know they don’t describe reality perfectly. Also, props for completely missing the point, while at the same time trying to ignore the actual factuals.
On an aggregate scale, the Earth is round. It’s just not spherical.
People, this is my basic point. We all have to adjust the facts for our own use. It’s not distorting the facts, it’s choosing which ones we can manage to use to best advantage.
If you want to communicate with someone, you have to understand their view enough to find some common ground. This has only been a part of rheotoric teaching for something like twenty-five hundred years (maybe more, but we don’t have clear records about rhetoric before that). Thus, if you want to convince somebody, you must approach them on their level.
Most people appear to want instead, to lecture others. They ask, not “How do I approach this person?” but rather “How do I force them to believe what I say?” The Rhetorician approaches as a friend at your side. This, more than anything else, is why most protests fail, and why annoyed people get things done more easily than rioters. Annoyed, even angry people can still speak a coherent language. Rioters speak no language.
The best rhetoricians in modern times are probably found in the British Parliament (perhaps soon to be the English Parliament), who seem to love getting up and delivery aggressive, hard-hitting speeches. President Obama is actually quite good with some aspects, but is losing hsi touch. He has a very natural style, but one which focuses too much on the physical delivery and inspirational messages, which are only secondary aspects.
I knew it was Obama’s fault!
Yes.
Maybe…
-XT