News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why We Should Listen to Flat Earth Believers (Even Though... by naasking on Sunday May 13, 2018 @11:21AM (#17059350)
> The thing I find most infuriating speaking to anyone who believes in a conspiracy theory is that no rational argument can win them round because their arguments are rarely rational or based on concrete evidence.

I've started asking for a commitment up front whenever a disagreement comes up. So for flat Earthers, before bringing up any other points or discussing anything, just ask what would convince them to revise their views.

I sometimes preface this with saying that I think it's important to be honest about how certain I am about some position, and to state upfront what would prove me wrong. So I would be convinced that the Earth was flat if I ran an experiment, like a high flying balloon, that then showed 0 curvature in the Earth at high altitude where we'd expect some curvature. Then ask them the same question.

Now you're both on the same page, and if you're committed to resolving this question, you have a way to move forward and see who's right and you can do each step together to ensure no tampering, etc. And as a bonus, they get to learn exactly how science is done.

Re:Why We Should Listen to Flat Earth Believers (Even Though... by DoofusOfDeath on Sunday May 13, 2018 @11:36AM (#17059431)
I see the power in your idea of asking people up front what would convince them, but I question on of your premises:

Can we usually anticipate precisely what would and wouldn't convince us of a proposition? Particularly when it involves making a judgment call based on imperfect evidence?

Re:Why We Should Listen to Flat Earth Believers (Even Though... by naasking on Sunday May 13, 2018 @04:34PM (#17060905)
Well, someone that believes vaccines cause autism or in flat Earth based on imperfect evidence, if they're being honest there should some more convincing, less imperfect evidence capable of changing their minds. Of course, we can certainly think of reasons why it wasn't as perfectly convincing as we initially thought, but I think anyone who starts changing the goalposts realizes they're on the back foot at this point.

After doing this two ore more times, you can easily make the argument that it's just simpler to abandon that model, or to suggest that perhaps they believe what they do not for empirical reasons, but for some other reasons (like being part of a community they like).