> The show seemed very convincing On a tangent, isn't that a signal of inaccuracy? Accurate people - i.e., committed to be truthful and correct - are very care

> The show seemed very convincing On a tangent, isn't that a signal of inaccuracy? Accurate people - i.e., committed to be truthful and correct - are very careful and nuanced about what they claim, make weaknesses as clear as strengths, and are careful to not be too convincing, because that can distort their reader's critical thinking. At least, that's the ideal. But why be especially convincing - why be more convincing than your empirical evidence?