Tazmanian Devil writes:
Too bad for them, then.
That's not a very good attitude for an "educator".
If they can't understand that the sense of proof they seek is an illusion, what makes you think they can understand the evidence at all?
Until they understand what the evidence is and what the nature of evidence is, how can they understand illusions about the nature of evidence?
I honestly don't think it serves our purpose to get off on the wrong foot just because the person we are talking to got off on the wrong foot.
We still need to start from the foot they
are on.
Just how many times we've seen people who never got anything beyond a high school diploma but happened to have memorized 2 words from their high school bio text book showed up and declared themselves expert biologists?
About as often as we've seen them say, "A-ha! So you
admit you don't have any proof!"
I think talking in their oversimplified terms will only encourage them to be even more arrogant.
Arrogance seems to be ingrained in certain people. I've seldom seen it unlearned. "Admitting" you have no proof only feeds the arrogance. If you have no proof, their own "proof" - no matter how silly - becomes more valuable.
I don't want to make a big issue of it. I just don't think it's a good idea to lead with "we have no proof" when proof is exactly what they're looking for.
Drown them in evidence. Shoot down their objections. Shoot down their "evidence". When they have zero on their side, you can mention that your case will never be 100%.
Admit failure at the get-go and you'll never get a shot off.
That you in the avatar?
Dontcha recognize me from my movies?
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC