Evidence? Never said that. I just said, AFAIK, all religions change. It could be an attempt to remain relevant or to become more popular, to name just a couple of reasons.
Now that Hunter Biden has been convicted, on various online platforms (no link because I do not want to give them the traffic), the magaflatearther cultists are falling all over themselves calling President Biden “the father of a convicted felon”. Yet, they’re thrilled to post “I will proudly vote for the convicted felon in November”.
Logical–heck, rational–heck2, just plain old thought is not their forté.
Considering Don Jr and Eric seem to have inherited their father’s (lack of) morals and intelligence but without the cultlike admiration from sheepish followers who would donate to their legal defense, I suspect they’ll eventually be able to proudly declare they would proudly vote for the felon patriarch of a family full of felons.
No, I haven’t forgotten that science is messy and contentious. When dealing with bumper-sticker politics and confronting science denial (climate change, pandemic precautions/Dr. Fauci, human origins, etc.), you have to start at that level, because the conversation rarely goes beyond that, by getting into the nuances of the scientific method.
“Forté” is an adjective. It, appropriately enough, means “loud”. It is not the word you want here. “Forte” refers to the part of a foil closer to the hilt, which is better suited to performing casual amputations, as opposed to the tipward part of the foil, which is called the “foible”.
Just, fail to write “forté” outside of a musical context. In spoken conversation, it is fine, because it is what people understand, but in writing, it is simply wrong.
I hadn’t intended to imply you personally had, but my writing was not clear on that point. My apologies.
My point was that people who are well educated (and know and trust science generally) forgot about the messy process of science during the pandemic. They expected middle-school science where the authority figure tells them the answers to be memorized. When science changed the answers, they felt confused and betrayed.
I dislike promoting science as truths revealed by authorities, because that’s not what it is and people thinking so has real consequences. Your quip “it’s true whether you believe it or not” triggered me along that line.
No worries, and we are in agreement! During the pandemic, I had conservative friends of mine arguing with me over the SAH orders and mask mandates and the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines. They are smart, professional, people, and not some backwoods blockheads. But they had been drinking the Fox News Flav’r Aid, and as you say, were very confuzzled why the changing situation demanded changing messages and strategy, and not a strict, monotone and consistent answer for what was going on. It’s like they were fighting against the facts, looking for any ember of weakness, and the changing strategies gave them that - enabling doubt and over-questioning the info that was being shared in public. Simple statements like my quip managed to penetrate the layers of doubt (altho I am not sure it had any long-term effect on their thinking about it).
In fact, I always tell my students that there are no authorities at all in science (nor math). There are experts, and you would do well to listen to them because they’re usually right, but there are no authorities.
We all know the failure of memory, but I’m pretty sure they switched it up during a time when the Cola Wars heated up - IIRC, a competitor salesman (Pepsi, I guess?) came in and offered them a deal to get them to switch.