It depends. Are you dealing with a "rational" actor? Are you dealing in the objective or the subjective? If you are dealing with someone nominally rational on

It depends. Are you dealing with a "rational" actor? Are you dealing in the objective or the subjective? If you are dealing with someone nominally rational on a subject of some objectivity, the question is really how do you interpret the science and how it that enforced or detracted from by your lived experience. That doesn't invalidate the science, but it helps with perspective. If you are dealing with an irrational actor but an objective issue, you can throw the science in their face but that is generally not a good way to approach it. Humans respond defensively as a reflex. If someone knew the "one truth" to the world, I would reflexively and cynically respond that they probably don't, and counter-argue. I might investigate the alternatives though. I think the goal here is just convince them to do more seeking. And if they are unwilling to do that and to change to the objective side of things, they aren't worth the time (period). If you are dealing in the subjective, the same things tend to apply but be more careful. You are dealing in the realm of lived experience, espoused values and old wisdom. Old wisdom tends to be better than new wisdom, unless the nature of the problem is new, and lived experience tends to always be more compelling to you than to others around you. Mostly, you are wasting time trying to change minds. Try to point people in the direction where they can learn for themselves, no one wants to be taught, they want to be shown, and sometimes they are more open if you validate their perspective first (not sarcastically, truly validate it, and then proceed to attack the central argument).