4 ms·

These two concepts -- that many people are ignoramuses, and that more convincing evidence might help -- are not exclusive of each other.

• pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  No, but the assumption of the ignorance of others as the reason you can't reach them is passive whilst the drive to provide better evidence to convince people is active. Sitting back and saying I've got what you need but you can't understand is not going to move you forward. Pushing on to a position of greater clarity and persuasion will usually help in convincing not only the as-yet-unconvinced but also win more mindshare with the convinced. [Was that generic enough?!]
  • apotheon 17y ago
    I don't see where you get the impression that I'm advocating for (solely) taking your "passive" approach, either. Against what, exactly, are you arguing? Is there something I actually said to which you object? Are you assuming for some reason that the fact I said something is proof that I advocate everyone doing nothing but sitting around saying the same thing? I even agreed that providing more convincing evidence could be helpful, indicating that trying to come up with that evidence is a good idea! What's up with your attempts to cast everything I say as opposition to that?
    • pbhjpbhj 17y ago
      I was remarking, rather than arguing. More of an expansion of my interpretation of the GP's post. Note that I start "no" as agreement that the two things are not exclusive. [I think if we're not on the same page then we're at least in the same Dewey classification.]
      • apotheon 17y ago
        Okay, fair enough. Thanks for clarifying.