Quote:
Originally Posted by JediKooter
Sounds more like a philosophical issue than anything else to me and admittedly, that does have a strong influence on people's decision making and rationalizations. I also think this is where cognitive bias and confirmation bias comes into play and you should take that into account.
|
Both sides have their own cognitive biases and confirmation biases (for example, I think an over-reliance on reason and rational bases is a product of our modernist society, and slowly but sure post-modern thinking is making inroads against this sort of ingrained thinking). And, of course, that leads the point that people can disagree on the conclusions while having the same issue presented to them.
Quote:
|
So whether or not it's been scientifically proven that global warming exists, that a human embryo isn't alive at a certain stage or that a fat man in a red suit flies a sled powered by magical reindeer, the best you can hope for is present the evidence to those people and hope they see the bigger picture using that new data and are making an informed decision.
|
The problem is that
a) you believe it is scientifically possible to prove that an embryo is a human life at some certain
b) you believe that those who disagree with you are de facto anti-science and/or refuse to consider the data
Both are massive mistakes (and perhaps evidence of your own cognitive biases), IMO. It also makes people on the other side believe you are talking down to them.