> Reality shows that countering crazy ideas with rational argument is not working very well It's working quite well really. There are few things that people st

> Reality shows that countering crazy ideas with rational argument is not working very well It's working quite well really. There are few things that people stick to their guns on in the face of a good argument. For the average person maybe only a dozen or so. > There are still people in US convinced that "the election was stolen" whatever argument is used, and they will never change their mind (they don't have any reason to change their mind: any argument can be claimed being "part of the conspiracy" so they don't have to accept a result that they don't like). This is a bad example, actually providing a compelling argument on a case like this which is built on divergent world view would be the length of a book (to rebuild the erroneous parts of the world view), not an essay. The correct solution is to give people general epistemological tools and habits that are applicable in most situations that allows and encourages them to do properly rigorous research to understand a complex issue. That teaches them what kind of questions they need to ask, what sort of context might be relevant, how to judge reliability of information and ensuring they make their hypothesis disprovable.