The problem with facts speaking for themselves is that they rarely do; on the contrary, they are frequently cryptic. That being so, perhaps the next-best thing is that people should be familiar with the dark arts of rhetoric, so that they are better positioned to recognize and respond to their use. The measure of credibility is only saying things that stand up to scrutiny.
Hm… I’m not too sure how much I agree with this, can you raise an example of what you mean?
In my experience while uncritical reading of evidence rarely produces a result (uncritical reading in general rarely ever does) close examination of facts usually leads to support for certain broad narratives. I might bring up examples of flat earth and vaccines. While some people don’t believe in the consensus, I think they are the exception that proves the rule. By and large people are able to understand basic scientific evidence, or so I think.
The problem with facts speaking for themselves is that they rarely do; on the contrary, they are frequently cryptic. That being so, perhaps the next-best thing is that people should be familiar with the dark arts of rhetoric, so that they are better positioned to recognize and respond to their use. The measure of credibility is only saying things that stand up to scrutiny.
Hm… I’m not too sure how much I agree with this, can you raise an example of what you mean?
In my experience while uncritical reading of evidence rarely produces a result (uncritical reading in general rarely ever does) close examination of facts usually leads to support for certain broad narratives. I might bring up examples of flat earth and vaccines. While some people don’t believe in the consensus, I think they are the exception that proves the rule. By and large people are able to understand basic scientific evidence, or so I think.
Do you believe otherwise?