"Probably because it's true in most cases. Most people don't have a deep understanding of even a single issue, let alone multiple. " What evidence do you have o

"Probably because it's true in most cases. Most people don't have a deep understanding of even a single issue, let alone multiple. " What evidence do you have of this? As far as i'm aware, research studies basically show that providing more facts one way or the other only makes people's convictions stronger. It doesn't change their minds that often. It's actually incredibly hard to change people's minds. Now, you are free to argue this is completely irrational, and i'd 100% agree. But it does mean that people know what you know and understand what you understand and still disagree. Whether that makes sense to do so or not. See, e.g., http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/37/11/2098/ http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/37/11/2098/ and pretty much every study since. Another example: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1547.html http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1... "Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest" Like I said, i'd strongly argue comprehension is not the problem. Until people realize that is the case, and stop just dismissing anyone who disagrees as ignorant, nothing will change.