2 ms·

We've been over the data so many times that there isn't really anything new to say about it. Insisting on revisiting old arguments is itself a rhetorical tactic

We've been over the data so many times that there isn't really anything new to say about it. Insisting on revisiting old arguments is itself a rhetorical tactic that superficially resembles argumentation but is really just a time-waster. One could simply refuse to engage, but that cedes the field to the people using in the easiest talking points. That "field" consists of people whose opinions matter, because they vote, but continue to consider the situation "unproven" despite scientific evidence overwhelmingly on one side. It becomes entirely a matter of persuasion, almost completely divorced from the actual data, since anybody capable of being persuaded by the data already has been.

kristopolous 3y ago
It's not that they don't find the empirical evidence persuasive but they can't resolve it with their personal emotional and political alignments. Until you can repackage climate change as some slaphappy singsongy jesus thing or some hayekian libertarian delusion, a large percentage of the population will never get on board. That's because the evidence they're looking for is biblical verses or rational choice theory argument - there's nothing materialist about their epistemology which is why that approach simply does not work.