Ideas are edifices, they have to be constructed on a foundation. And, once trusted, they becomem a platform, on top of which more ideas can be constructed.

I think the main problem is that the lies people believe today (i.e. that the election was stolen) are constructed on a deep foundation (which, like anything, is some part factual and some part counterfactual).

To refute a lie, you have to not only tear down the lie, but the foundation on which it was constructed. And because life is complicated, sometimes we construct many verifiable truths on top of complete lies. We have to be careful deconstructing these.

So, to correct a superficial lie (election was stolen), you have to deconstruct the lie recursively (state electors, mail in voting, behavior of senators/congresspeople). This is incredibly hard, because people trust the platforms on which the lie is constructed.

This is why we don't bother trying to reason with the "lizard conspiracy" people. It's also why PhD students can't be bothered to explain their work to people outside their field.

It's a real conundrum.

So much this. Drives me up the wall in somewhat scientific discussions, e.g. about climate change. A bogus statement is easily made, but disproving it, if you don't already know the answer, is really hard work - sometimes could take weeks of sincere research, if you want to use proper scientific thoroughness. And of course, there are statements which basically cannot be disproved as they are completely discoupled from reality.

Amen to that. Especially since a very popular tactic is to just bombard you with so much nonsense in rapid succession that it simply becomes impossible to discuss (and research!) each and every point.

And yeah - some of it is so far out there it's not even wrong.

The so-called bullshit asymmetry principle: "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law