About Believable Proof (IDIOMS AND PROVERBS)
Note, I did not say for those who do not believe, and I did not say for those who know. There is a major difference there.
If you engage in enough discussion with people with opposing, neutral, and non-existent knowledge on any issue, then you understand how useless or useful a proof can be.
For those with non-existent knowledge, presenting them with the right proof can sway them in the direction you intend.
Often, the first party to expose them to a concept wins their mind. The effort needed to convince them is minimal compared to other categories of people.
If you are the second party to attempt to win their mind, unless the first team did a shabby job, you have an uphill task.
You need a shred of larger evidence and presentation skill to upstage whatever impression has been created. One advantage you do have is that what you’ll say will likely be the last thing on their mind. But you still need to come in strong.
For the neutral, they probably have heard both sides of the argument before, but no side provided sufficient logic or proof to win them over.
This group of people could be more independent-minded or they might simply be anti-popular opinion. It is possible they like to take their time to think things true or they are just slow thinkers.
The fact that someone appears to be neutral doesn’t make them nobler, or thoughtful, or unique, or strong-willed. There is nothing special about being different.
Especially when it serves no purpose.
Overall though, it would require more preparation to get them to agree with you. Especially when the person is doing it out of principle or ego.
The fact that many people still mistake ego for principle is a discussion for another day.
As for those on the opposing side, getting them to change their stance will require more than proof.
They hold their current belief for a reason. Understanding that reason is the first step towards changing their minds.
You could come up with a thousand reasons and a hundred pieces of evidence for why they should have a rethink, if none of those addresses their concerns, then you could as well be trying to squeeze water out of a rock.
Exchanging words with them will lead nowhere.
Sometimes, their response will make you doubt everything you ever knew or believed about them.
If you ever meet a medical doctor who argues in favor of “flat earth”, then you’ll understand what I mean.
For such people, no proof will ever be sufficient. The world is blind to the truth and they have found the secret to the universe.
Sometimes, I wonder how this information age resulted in a messed-up age of enlightenment.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is an extremist though. Some legitimately believe in a superior argument.
The points don’t necessarily have to address each of your concerns, it just needs to move the discussion to a better place.
The best discussions and arguments I’ve engaged in are those we learn from each other and acknowledge each time we do so.
Your view is based on your knowledge. That knowledge is a product of the information you have access to or have come across. The same applies to me.
As we discuss, we take turns to present our facts, then drop the lesser for the better.
The argument that your feelings are valid is one of the reasons people keep doubling down on their wrong stance.
Your feelings are emotions. Those emotions are truly valid. But if the information that planted that emotion is valid, then how valid is that emotion?
For each proof presented, detach yourself from your emotions and analyze intellectually.
If you keep letting your emotions prevent you from accepting new knowledge, you are already a fundamentalist.
This is true of politics, sports, academics, religion, spirituality, relationships, and every sphere of life.
Is there any point in arguing or discussing with you when we both know you’ll never change your mind?
If no proof is sufficient, or it will take a ridiculous amount of evidence to make you budge, then there is no need to have this conversation.