except I didn't enspouse reasonable argument sourced from scientific theory.
I asked them why the same constellations look different in the southern hemisphere.
and received no response.
I studiously avoided any non-personally verifiable theory for the very reason you mention.
at least until much later when it became clear that they weren't going to talk about basic observational data anyway.
It is better to lose the social cohesion of mistaken viewpoints and acccept personal responsibility for developing a viewpoint of the world that is coherent with observational data,
then it is to just languish in cultish agreement for the sake of belonging.
Replies (5)
iow
it's not just that they're "thinking critically from different assumptions."
The viewpoint doesn't explain basic observational fact.
Why is it better to lose the social cohesion of mistaken viewpoints? What tangible benefits do you receive?
Also, a man who lived through Covid must acknowledge that the cultish agreement for the sake of belonging still exists under the guise of Science.
oh I argue with those people too
it's okay to have smaller, more fractured groups that identify by niche interests.
smaller groups that compete or cooperate on the basis of *the effectiveness of their ideas* is a better social outcome than large groups driven by herd mentality.
but this is maximally effective if people are actually thinking critically and creating views that map to their observations.
I think to have success with changing these people's minds, one would need to offer a framing of tangible benefits. Like for instance if they were to attempt navigating the ocean by the stars.
since the benefits are primarily social
as you pointed out
I think that's unlikely to be effective.
like covid hysteria, it's mostly just flag waving and group identification.
