A lot of the time, people will believe things without good reason. The fairness of their point of view is indicated by how they respond to even-handed, fair criticism of their position. The evidence of an opposing view also tests their propensity to the truth. When a person's view is refuted and weakened by evidence, do they still stand behind their point of view? Will they adjust their point of view based on the evidence that comes in?
People seize upon the most miniscule evidence to justify something they want justified, not because they've examined the issue carefully. Rejecting false information requires more cognitive effort than just taking it in. Weighing the plausibility of a message or assessing the reliability of its source is more difficult, cognitively, than simply accepting that the message is true. Furthermore, if the topic isn't very important to you or you have other things on your mind, the misinformation is more likely to take hold.
There is also the condition known as “filtering” that affects one’s position. This means you're more likely to pay attention just to a limited number of features that reinforce information consistent with what you already "know" or exposed to. Lies and misinformation may become deeply rooted when it conforms to preexisting political, religious, or other views. Unfortunately, a person's fears, needs and prejudices are largely unconscious. This makes them highly resistant to information that challenges or conflicts with them in ways that are threatening.
From my own personal experiences, I have learned the difficulty of “reaching” certain people, regardless of the facts presented. For example, I have written about global warming, only to find that many are unwilling to weigh the facts versus what they've heard. Many tend to think that the argument is against the warming of the earth, whereas it is really about the cause of the warming. Are man-made reasons to blame as many suggest or is warming simply natural?
The only way to prove man-made global warming is to show that man has done something "dramatic" enough to affect the climate. The calculations must first be accurate, yet now we are finding out that the math used in climate models are dramatically flawed. Furthermore, we have "ClimateGate" and the petition of thousands of scientists against the claims of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.
A lady told me one day after a global warming article, "How much evidence do you need?" She was suggesting my arguments were baseless, and that I should just admit the validity of man-made global warming. She did not offer any contradictory evidence to my findings, but decided mine were wrong nonetheless.
I'm open to criticism, especially when supported by facts or even strong circumstantial evidence. Show me where I am wrong and I'll be happy to reassess my position. To be immovable and entrenched in one position, regardless of facts, is to quit learning. Believe me, when my final breath comes, I hope to still be learning.
I work hard to decipher the facts and logical, substantiated results from all of the given information that is available. First, I try to gather as much information as I can from as many credible sources as possible. Are they finding the same facts, or do they differ from one another? If they are different, where and why are they different? Second, what are the opposing position(s) and what facts are they relying on? Third, if the popular view is factually deficient, why is it dominating the belief of most? Who is controlling the message and what benefit are they deriving from the misinformation? Fourth, what is the very latest information available?
These four steps are the minimal amount of work that must go into searching out the truth. The truth must be all-important, even in the face of ridicule and criticism. The truth is not always popular, but the truth will always stand whereas the untruth will crumble.
In order to be fair, you must approach the topic with the purpose of finding the truth, whatever that may be. A weighted challenge to the topic is beneficial to everyone as it tests the facts, provides another take on the matter, and brings items to the conversation that may have been missed. Our democracy works when this "difference of opinion" is argued intelligently.
“The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see.” ― Ayn Rand
We all benefit when there is a willingness to engage all the facts instead of just the "story" presented to us by the media and political leaders. There is more to the story than the headline you are often presented. Sometimes, a lot more...