<p><strong>What is the best way to overcome: Why facts don't change our minds?</strong><br> 
<a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds</a> </p>

<p>I want to get climate change deniers to seriously consider the possibility that they may be incorrect. It is very important that we achieve a sufficient quorum of public support so that we can implement the required changes. </p>

<p>I have spent hundreds of hours carefully proving that severe anthropogenic (human caused) climate change is a verified fact that does not even depend on expert opinion. The actual raw uninterpreted climate data proves this all by itself. </p>

<p>I was thinking that this would break through to the remaining 33% climate change skeptics that do not have a financial incentive to lie. What is the expert opinion on changing peoples minds on the basis of irrefutable facts? </p>

<p>When there is a difference of opinion even when one disagrees with an expert it is possible that the expert is incorrect. When one rejects verified facts one is impossibly correct. The former seems to be within the range of normal behavior whereas the latter seem pathological. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-10-16T03:48:08.507Z
[This debunking handbook](https://skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf) is exactly what you are looking for
Ooker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-10-16T03:54:29.980Z
@Ooker It looks like that book agrees with at least one of the five other articles that I found.  I just did a Google search with "changing minds with facts" and came up with a bunch of stuff.
polcott
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-10-16T04:39:42.537Z
Possible duplicate of: https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/9433/7001.  Also see https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/23973/7001, and there is lots of material on this forum on confirmation bias - eg, https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/23400/7001.
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-10-16T05:15:03.327Z
@ArnonWeinberg This is quite different than overcoming a belief. I am talking about  irrefutable verified facts. It is like throwing a bucket of water in someone's face and asking if they are wet. If they deny it it is obvious even to themselves that they are lying.
polcott
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-10-16T17:17:24.760Z
@polcott I don't understand the difference.  Anyway, one of the answers given to that question is the same as the one provided in comments, which you said is relevant, so I guess they can't be that different.
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-10-16T17:31:51.173Z
@ArnonWeinberg Beliefs depend upon inductive reasoning and are at most only probably true. Facts depend upon deductive reasoning and are at most necessarily true and thus impossibly false.
polcott
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-10-16T17:47:49.033Z
@polcott These are not the conventional definitions (feel free to look it up), but I'm willing to go along with them.  However, here's, the thing: While math and logic are substantially deductive, science (including climate science) is largely inductive - ie, scientists use samples of data, simulations, and other inductive tools to reach broader conclusions.  So I'm afraid that by your unconventional definitions, climate science would qualify as beliefs.
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-10-16T18:07:11.823Z
@ArnonWeinberg   It looks like this focus on facts may have worked at least once now.

These words got a very vigorous climate change skeptic on Facebook to WAKE UP AND SMELL THE CLIMATE SCIENCE:

There is no climate science what-so-ever that can possibly attribute the current 100-fold faster rate of CO2 increase to any natural cause. If you don't face this fact THAT PROVES YOU ARE A DAMN LIAR.
polcott
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-10-16T19:15:55.427Z
@polcott You don't need to convince me, or likely many of the regulars here, that man-made climate change is a real thing. However, this is not a discussion forum or a place for debate. It seems to me like you are looking for a discussion rather than a Q&A. I'd suggest keeping the inflammatory language to a minimum.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-10-16T19:44:22.277Z
@BryanKrause we must always keep in mind that a large number of climate change "skeptics" are being paid to spread climate change disinformation. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/?fbclid=IwAR1iIifyUOjUlcSoaN7MHNUp0RQOcqKOOcN4d-tivqJ5XYDA-GqKlD4jbJI#wY7WYmkPZEcvpDPe.01
polcott
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-10-16T19:46:00.633Z
@polcott Among people publishing, yes - but the vast majority of climate change skeptics have no financial connection to the issue at all, though they may have a political/tribal connection. They are the un/mis-informed masses, and likely those towards which your original question is most concerned.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-10-16T20:19:23.210Z
@BryanKrause Yes. I guess that 90% of the recent 33% Gallup Poll climate change skeptics are honest. I put the "Liar" comment in there to weed out the dishonest ones. So far I am two for two on that. Two tribal climate change skeptics now accept that severe anthropogenic climate change is real.
polcott
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-10-17T14:06:39.770Z
@ChrisRogers It is crucially different. When you have a difference of opinion you are possibly correct when you reject verified facts you impossibly correct. How do we change the minds of people that reject verified facts?
polcott
<decision-making><deception>
What is the best way to overcome: Why facts don't change our minds?
polcott
# What is the best way to overcome: Why facts don't change our minds?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-10-16)

**What is the best way to overcome: Why facts don't change our minds?**  
<https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds>

I want to get climate change deniers to seriously consider the possibility that they may be incorrect. It is very important that we achieve a sufficient quorum of public support so that we can implement the required changes.

I have spent hundreds of hours carefully proving that severe anthropogenic (human caused) climate change is a verified fact that does not even depend on expert opinion. The actual raw uninterpreted climate data proves this all by itself.

I was thinking that this would break through to the remaining 33% climate change skeptics that do not have a financial incentive to lie. What is the expert opinion on changing peoples minds on the basis of irrefutable facts?

When there is a difference of opinion even when one disagrees with an expert it is possible that the expert is incorrect. When one rejects verified facts one is impossibly correct. The former seems to be within the range of normal behavior whereas the latter seem pathological.

**Tags:** decision-making, deception

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: [This debunking handbook](https://skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf) is exactly what you are looking for  
> **username_0**: @username_1 It looks like that book agrees with at least one of the five other articles that I found.  I just did a Google search with "changing minds with facts" and came up with a bunch of stuff.  
> **username_2**: Possible duplicate of: https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/9433/7001.  Also see https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/23973/7001, and there is lots of material on this forum on confirmation bias - eg, https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/23400/7001.  
> **username_0**: @ArnonWeinberg This is quite different than overcoming a belief. I am talking about  irrefutable verified facts. It is like throwing a bucket of water in someone's face and asking if they are wet. If they deny it it is obvious even to themselves that they are lying.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 I don't understand the difference.  Anyway, one of the answers given to that question is the same as the one provided in comments, which you said is relevant, so I guess they can't be that different.  
> **username_0**: @ArnonWeinberg Beliefs depend upon inductive reasoning and are at most only probably true. Facts depend upon deductive reasoning and are at most necessarily true and thus impossibly false.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 These are not the conventional definitions (feel free to look it up), but I'm willing to go along with them.  However, here's, the thing: While math and logic are substantially deductive, science (including climate science) is largely inductive - ie, scientists use samples of data, simulations, and other inductive tools to reach broader conclusions.  So I'm afraid that by your unconventional definitions, climate science would qualify as beliefs.  
> **username_0**: @ArnonWeinberg   It looks like this focus on facts may have worked at least once now.  These words got a very vigorous climate change skeptic on Facebook to WAKE UP AND SMELL THE CLIMATE SCIENCE:  There is no climate science what-so-ever that can possibly attribute the current 100-fold faster rate of CO2 increase to any natural cause. If you don't face this fact THAT PROVES YOU ARE A DAMN LIAR.  
> **username_3**: @username_0 You don't need to convince me, or likely many of the regulars here, that man-made climate change is a real thing. However, this is not a discussion forum or a place for debate. It seems to me like you are looking for a discussion rather than a Q&A. I'd suggest keeping the inflammatory language to a minimum.  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause we must always keep in mind that a large number of climate change "skeptics" are being paid to spread climate change disinformation. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/?fbclid=IwAR1iIifyUOjUlcSoaN7MHNUp0RQOcqKOOcN4d-tivqJ5XYDA-GqKlD4jbJI#wY7WYmkPZEcvpDPe.01  
> **username_3**: @username_0 Among people publishing, yes - but the vast majority of climate change skeptics have no financial connection to the issue at all, though they may have a political/tribal connection. They are the un/mis-informed masses, and likely those towards which your original question is most concerned.  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause Yes. I guess that 90% of the recent 33% Gallup Poll climate change skeptics are honest. I put the "Liar" comment in there to weed out the dishonest ones. So far I am two for two on that. Two tribal climate change skeptics now accept that severe anthropogenic climate change is real.  
> **username_0**: @ChrisRogers It is crucially different. When you have a difference of opinion you are possibly correct when you reject verified facts you impossibly correct. How do we change the minds of people that reject verified facts?  

---

## 0 answers

