Why are we so bad at this?

When I started EvC well over 20 years ago I had high hopes. I believed that moderated discussion would bring the light of understanding to benighted evolution skeptics. But that never happened. I bet that if we all got together we could come up with perhaps as many as 10 people we convinced in all that time.An article in this months American Scientist is titled How People Decide to Trust in Science. According to it, our efforts were doomed from the start.A significant focus of the article is trust in science, how people develop it, how many have it, how it depends upon context. Another important focus is the difference between science in general and regulatory science, such as during covid. It notes that combating distrust in regulatory science with more science education had a paradoxically opposite effect because such efforts were seen as patronizing. It also made political polarizations worse.So how to develop trust? The article discusses trust methods and discussed their study of long covid patients who participated in an online discussion group. This paragraph is instructive:

quote:

---

We found that a specific sequence was common to those users whose posts were consistently upvoted. They did not begin their posting career by immediately citing scientific articles, however well supported, but by establishing a similarity of experience, which involved asking questions about the experiences of others and posting about one’s own illness experiences—at the correct moment, when it was relevant and resonant. Only in this way could they establish commonality. On the other hand, users who immediately tried to tell others what they’d learned from the literature were downvoted and disliked—nobody likes a know-it-all. Users whose anecdotal stories lacked attunement to the stories told by others were looked upon with suspicion, and their authenticity was questioned.

---

In other words, burying someone in facts right off the bat doesn't work. Adding scorn only makes it worse. You have to first build trust and then only gradually introduce facts and/or arguments. And they have to resonate else they'll be rejected.I don't see how building trust among evolution skeptics was ever possible here. Typically they appeared here already primed with misinformation that they could infinitely draw upon from the many anti-evolution websites. How do you go about building trust with someone whose initial post begins with (picking a topic at random), "Radiocarbon dating has been proved false. The world is only 5700 years old."? How do you respond in a way designed to build trust but that is honest, especially since their next response will probably contain blatantly and usually obviously false information from ICR that was carefully designed to be very convincing for those unfamiliar with science?Their answer is that beginning by establishing a similarity of experience is very important. I know some of us have such experience, but many are probably like me. Before high school my views were plastic and unformed, but sometime during high school only facts and logic began to matter to me as far as choosing what to accept as true. A friend used to frequently chastise me, "You're too logical."I believe the article is behind a paywall, but hopefully I've said enough to provide a feel for what it says. Creation/Evolution Miscellany?--Percy

Here are facts that will persuade even the most intransigent evangelical about just how dangerous childbirth can be and just how poor a job the US is doing.The worst country in the world for female mortality during childbirth is South Sudan at 1223 per 100,000 births. The US is far, far better than South Sudan at only 21 per 100,000 births.Here are some of the countries we are better than: Iran, China, Armenia, Syria, Iraq, North Korea, Laos, Yemen, Cambodia, Haiti, Mali, Afghanistan and Chad. Isn't that great? We're ahead of Afghanistan and Chad?Here's a list of some of the countries we are worse than: Gaza Strip, Latvia, Egypt, Turkey, Oman, Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, Hungary, Russia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Serbia, Lithuania, Qatar, Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Croatia, Czechia and Belarus. Isn't that great? Women die in childbirth in the United States at a higher rate than in Russia and Belarus. We should be so proud!To put the 21 per 100,000 rate of the US in perspective, here are the numbers for our close western allies: Portugal: 12; Canada: 11; UK: 10; France: 8; Ireland: 5; Italy: 5; Denmark: 5; SwedenL: 5; Japan: 4; Germany: 4; Spain: 3; Israel: 3, Norway: 2.If you only include Europe and North America then we are 3rd worst behind Cyprus and Mexico. Every other country is better than us.I'm sure all evangelicals are now convinced of the importance of due consideration of all possible appropriate medical care for pregnant women, including abortion.--Percy

As a neuropsychologist friend of mine likes to put it, we're tribal.--Percy

I think you just inadvertently proved the thread's premise.--Percy

I don't think it's a saying, but maybe it should be: "Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to ignorance or stupidity." Oh, it does exist, Hanlon's razor - Wikipedia.And Candle3 riffed off an entire post just from seeing the word "abortion," which is not this thread's topic. The difficulty of persuasion is the thread's topic.--Percy

In a world of 7 billion people, any particular horror Candle3 wants to imagine has probably happened somewhere, and these days someone likely took images. But just as we don't take all cars away because somebody somewhere caused an accident with multiple fatalities, we don't take abortions away just because somebody somewhere made a real botch of it.Another caution is that the images Candle3 is probably looking at may not be what they are purported to be. Many media outlets now have sections where they debunk fake claims. Most recently a picture of a woman standing still while holding a small American flag went viral with the claim that she had been imprisoned for January 6th. The actual picture was of a woman attending a protest far from Washington not on January 6th and not about the election, and of course she was never arrested charged or imprisoned. It was just a random image some fake news promoter used. Maybe Candle3 is looking at images of actual abortions, maybe he's not. Who could know these days. What we do know is that these days there's a big industry pushing fake information designed to get people riled up and not caring much about truth or accuracy.Getting back to the topic, how do you persuade Candle3 of your point of view? You've responded with persuasive sounding facts and arguments, but we know from long experience that that won't work.--Percy

Turning this back toward the thread's topic, how would you persuade people of your views on abortion?--Percy

Hi Candle3,Abortion isn't the topic, so let's try to return to the actual topic, which one could loosely define as the art of persuasion. Endlessly repeating this isn't proving successful. How do you think you might better persuade people that abortion is murder?--Percy

My question about how you might better persuade people that abortion is murder was meant to encourage you to rethink your approach in light of the information in the opening post. You instead continued on the same path.The topic in this thread isn't abortion. Abortion is fine as a working example of something you'd like to persuade people about, but this thread is about how most effectively to persuade. How might you modify your reply to me to better persuade?--Percy

I'll take a stab at this since I think I know what Candle3 will say, though I won't be hitting "return" every 60 characters. A baby, i.e., a living human being, is created when sperm and egg first come together to form a zygote. It remains a baby from that time forward. Any loss of the baby after that represents a death. If it's spontaneously or natural, such as through failure to fully attach to the uterine wall (almost always undetected) or a miscarriage, then it's an unfortunate but unpreventable death. If it's through any abortive technique then it's murder.One other common conservative Christian idea for when a zygote becomes a baby is when the heartbeat can be detected. Other ideas not widely shared within the conservative Christian community are when brain activity can be detected, or when survival outside the womb is possible given modern technology.One little addendum: If a conservative Christian family rejects modern medicine and loses a baby through medically preventable miscarriage then it is God's will, not murder.--Percy

I think you might have completely missed the underlying premise: You're dissembling. Whether you know anyone like this or not, you know such families exist. Conservative Christian families withholding modern medical care from their children make regular appearances in the news, such as this one from last week: Please don't pretend (in effect, lie) that this issue doesn't exist because it very much does. When a conservative Christian family withholds medical care from a child who dies, is it God's will or murder (or manslaughter in this case)?The part of my post that you replied to is labeled "one little addendum". There was a longer section above that attempted to capture your feelings about when a zygote becomes a human being. Did I get that right?--Percy

And when they say the same of your use of modern medicine, who are we to believe? Perhaps neither? Isn't it just you judging that they're refusing to obey God? Isn't yours a denomination claiming to be Christian yet refusing to obey Him according to their judgment? Who to believe, who to believe? As does yours. What makes you think there's such a thing as magic? How do you know this?And, how universal could a church be when there are thousands of sects, most of which all Christians reject, Catholicism in your case, for one significant example. No kidding. Aren't you contradicting yourself here? Haven't you declared both Simon Peter and Jesus as the Rock. Aren't you contradicting yourself again? First you say the Rock was Simon Peter and/or Jesus, and now you say the Rock is make-believe? How do you know this? How do you know this? Didn't the change to a Sunday Sabbath occur long before the RCC even existed? How do you know which is God's message? Aren't you an example? And you have? How do you know this?Getting back on topic, why do you think you're so bad at persuasion?--Percy

Cleaned up your quoting and grammar for ya, and I'll reply to all your four messages to me in this single message. What day is your Sabbath? What makes you think life is magic, or that there's even any such thing as magic? You think science's understanding of abiogenesis and consciousness is that they leached from a rock? So, no evidence-based argument, then. You're just going to claim knowledge, keep it secret, and tell people they should believe you.
​ Says the person who still uses needless carriage returns and can't figure out quoting after 6 years here. Have you forgotten that you're trying to persuade us that you have the proper view of modern medicine and they don't?--Percy

Are you claiming, in all modesty of course, that your church is one of those churches with the correct view? I ask again: Who to believe, who to believe? Multiple Christian religions teach that God has a plan to save everyone. Someone took a poll? Your two statements are contradictory. Perhaps one of these is a misstatement?

• "99% of Christians believe that God is trying to save everyone [during] the present age"
• "they portray a God who is incapable of saving the vast majority of humans"

Yes, we know many Christians believe this. Really? Tell that to the Canaanites, among many others. Your loving God sure seems to have a bloodlust. More secrets, huh. If God isn't telling anyone "how to achieve complete peace and happiness," how can you be sure he really knows? Let me guess. You learned it in the Bible. And you know this how? Let me guess. You learned it in the Bible. People have tried every form of religion that there is; yet, they have failed time after time after time. And he intervened how? You *do* realize that this contradicts what you said earlier about God giving us 6000 years to "find peace and happiness on our own." Or do you mean God gave us a hopeless task that he knew we would fail, perhaps so he could enjoy torturing us by making us scramble around fruitlessly seeking answers. I wish he *would* set his sights on me. It would be an interesting conversation. Didn't you already say this? Good to know.--Percy

I'm reminded of the flat earther who a few years ago launched himself on a rocket of his own construction and was killed. He believed that by going up maybe a mile on his rocket he would have a view that would prove a flat earth, even though he had flown on airliners traveling at a 5 mile height and not been convinced. Why did he think his rocket would provide him convincing data? Who knows, but he was willing to risk his life trying.There's a kind of person who just can't be convinced by real world data. They believe what they believe and that's that, facts be damned. They are the most frustrating people in the world, particularly when they're in your family and you have to see them every Thanksgiving.--Percy