Creationists make it sound as though a “theory” is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.
Reality has been so politicized such that people truly believe, mostly, that there are two versions of reality: a conservative and a liberal version. In my mind, there's only one version of reality and then those who lie about it. Much as in a court of law.
People today sometimes get uncomfortable with empirical claims that seem to clash with their political assumptions, often because they haven't given much thought to the connections.
Bridge the gap with closed minds though careful dissection of ideas and solid presentation of fact.
The modern believer is not suspicious enough, which is perhaps why, when they try to construct arguments in their defence, the convictions are left doing all the work and reason, debilitated by neglect, weakly fails to prop them up.
I try to talk about policy issues intelligently, I try very hard to avoid thought bubbles. I make sure my speeches are well researched and footnoted. I make sure I am not talking through my hat.
One of the big differences between liberals and conservatives is that liberals really, really want to believe that people want to listen to facts.
I criticize a lot of players and coaches. But I back it up with facts. A lot of times guys get mad at me because someone told them what I said. I say, 'You're wrong: Go check the tape.'
I reject the notion of a post-truth area. I don't believe there is such a thing, and we shouldn't accept that.
As a lawyer you never speak with emotion. It's about the precise facts.
Science cannot resolve moral conflicts, but it can help to more accurately frame the debates about those conflicts.
The Facebook way is that you sit at the table and you state your opinion, back it up with data, and make a recommendation.
Of course, the diary helps me as well. 'That wasn't your position on July 7, 1991,' I'll remind Hugh an hour after we've had a fight. I'd have loved to rebut him sooner, but it takes awhile to look these things up.