"The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas."
- Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science As A Candle In The Darkness
Carl Sagan never saw Twitter.
There's no argument "better" enough to manage someone who simply responds "K BUT U WRONG THO".
@mcfate Then you talk to those who _will_ listen. The reason that scientists have basically stopped talking to anyone who denies climate change to *convince* them is that it is a time wasting effort. There's no point trying to change the mind of a brick wall, literally or figuratively.
On the other hand, those who have been afraid / hesitant to ask and come forward to learn, those are the ones to focus on in any efforts. It's a grinding, slow, aggravating process, but it must be done.
Sagan never said, "Don't bother wasting your efforts on boneheads" and if he had, you wouldn't be quoting him.
That approach has certainly produced outstanding results for the climate, hasn't it? It sure makes it a lot easier for Trump to push policies that will only do more damage.
Anyway, you're supporting my position: good argument, generally speaking, does NOT drive out bad. It only "works" when you're willing to surrender when it DOESN'T work for you.
Β―\_(γ)_/Β―
Full disclosure: I was on the engineering team at Apple that worked on the projects named "Piltdown Man", "Cold Fusion", and "Carl Sagan", the latter of which was the immediate cause of Sagan's unsuccessful defamation suit against Apple, even after we renamed it to "BHA", which Sagan took to stand for "Butthead Astronomer" for some reason or other.
When the judge dismissed the case, he commented that he didn't believe it was possible to defame a world-famous astronomer by calling him a "butthead".
Β―\_(γ)_/Β―
@WDEFAustenOnek
Well, the empirical evidence suggests it's untrue. Falsity versus truth is an asymmetrical battle these days.
You can spread a lie to millions of people in fifteen seconds that would take an hour to refute with "better argument".
People thought "good speech" drove out bad, and ten minutes on any other social media platform will utterly refute that idea.
It's noble, but it doesn't actually work that way. For starts, it assumes intellectual honesty on all sides.