New research suggests that misinformed people rarely change their minds when presented with facts, page 2

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Can you relate this to your thoughts about the OP? I want to hear more.

We live in a day in age where conventional wisdom is touted as fact. The vast majority of people in The United States will tell you that you have to pay income taxes if you earn an income, but if you ask them to show you the law that states this, most will evade that question. Some will point to the 16th Amendment, as if that Amendment speaks to tax liability. It clearly doesn't, but challenge this, and many will begin to attack you as if you are "misinformed", but if you are challenging this information based on information you gained from case law, and other sources, who is "misinformed"?

The reality is that the vast majority of Americans have never even looked at Title 26 of The United States Code, let alone bothered to read it in order to come to know how, in fact, they became liable for an income tax, if in fact, they are even liable at all, but I bring this up, and suddenly people will accuse me of derailing this thread, because after all, this thread isn't about income taxation, its about facts, and how the misinformed will refuse to accept facts, even when faced with facts.

Anthropogenic global warming is presented as fact, the HIV=AIDS paradigm is presented as fact, the current cancer paradigm is presented as fact. Inalienable rights are spoken of derisively, as if those who assert them are misinformed, and even when virtually every state constitution asserts the inalienable rights of all people, if I assert inalienable rights, I am misinformed, and while people will vehemently scream that rights just don't come out of thin air, and governments are the ones who grant rights, it begs the question, whence came those rights? And yet, if I keep discussing inalienable rights much longer, surely someone will take offense, and accuse me of derailing this thread, because after all, this thread is about facts, and how the misinformed ignore facts, even when faced with facts.

Belief in God? Uh-oh! Now there is a big issue with people who just can't understand that when someone who believes in God is faced with the facts, they backfire and only settle into their beliefs with stronger conviction. Belief in individualism? Uh-oh! How can anyone believe in the individual when the facts are that society is here? Belief in self government? Uh-oh! How can anyone believe in self government when the fact is people are bad? Believe in free markets and capitalism? Uh-oh! How can anyone believe in free markets and capitalism when the fact is only the elite have capital, and everyone else is a slave to that ever popular acronym TPTB?

Or, reverse all that thought, and what do you get? Either way, the O.P.'s report of this study can vindicate you. If I show people all the laws regarding income taxation, and show how there is no clear law making most people liable, and all I get is backfire, then I am vindicated. Conversely, if when I show people this law, and they argue I am just playing semantics, or misunderstanding the language, or am simply just "misinformed", then they are vindicated by such a report. Either way, which ever side you are on, this study vindicates your own beliefs when you are confronted with someone who is "misinformed", and now we have a term for their reaction when confronted with the "facts", it is backfire.

Are there facts? Of course there are. Is there truth? Absolutely! Are facts truth? Sometimes, but not always. The fact of the matter is, I believe in God. Can I prove it? No. Can anyone prove there is no God? No. Facts have nothing to do with that truth. The fact of the matter is I believe in freedom. The fact of the matter is that increasingly the government says I have to be licensed in order to be free. The fact of the matter is that licenses are grants of permission to do something illegal. Is it a fact that freedom is illegal? Where is the truth?

Since I have joined this site, I have seen countless members insist that I am not free, and I have countered that we are all free. I have seen countless members insist that there is no free will. I have countered their insistence of such is made of their own free will. What are the facts? What is the truth? Is the truth what we make of it? How could it be? Is not truth simply just truth? Yet, even so, what is true for me, is true, and what true for you is true, and what is true for the O.P. is true, regardless of what the truth really is. Perhaps the truth is big enough, all encompassing enough, that whatever is true for us, is also true, even if none of us agree on what is true, or maybe not. Is that a fact? Maybe so.

Some one claims that for every dollar spent on food stamps, $1.74 goes back into the economy. Is that a fact? Mathematically it makes no sense, but there are graphs stating it is so. What is true? Who do we listen to? What do we trust? Shouldn't we trust our own perception of reality? Why would we trust other peoples perception of reality over our own? Just because they insist we are "misinformed" is that a fact? As best I understand math, 2+2=4 not 5, or 6, or 7, and yet, very smart economists will come along and tell us that for every dollar spent on food stamps $1.74 goes back into the economy. If I challenge this does this make me a heartless Republican who hates poor people? Some will think so, regardless of the facts.

Is it that I just like to argue? No I don't. But someone counters; Yes you do! I respond; Do not. They counter; Do too! I argue; Nope. They counter; Yep. Sigh.

There is a circumlocutory nature to how facts are defined. Circumlocution as definition is hardly definition. What is a horse? Why a horse is a horse, of course, of course! When tautology is the best we can do to describe a fact, then it seems to me, that the fact of the matter is, no one is quite sure what is a fact, and what isn't. If such is the case, then who is informed, and who is misinformed, when confronted with the facts?

[edit on 23-7-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]