>So, if are ways are all set in granite, what do any of us accomplish other than a feeling of self-satisfaction?

Worthy question, but I think it’s faulty in premise. I don’t think it’s true that all ways are set in granite. There may be people who won’t look at the evidence or refuse to accept the evidence because it conflicts with their greater worldview. But there are also plenty of people exposed to the idea that aren’t necessarily commited, they are just trying to figure out what makes the most sense. It is these people that you need to argue for, not to convince the conspiracy theorists and nutcases, but to inform the uninformed and mislead. For instance, on the Moon Hoax topic, I have encountered people who came to the discussion board leaning toward the moon landings were a hoax but primarily because the information they used to make that conclusion was faulty. It typically misrepresented technical topics, was incomplete, or in some cases was just blatantly wrong. With some patient explanation and a few references (and sometimes some real-world self-generated examples), these poeple were able to change their belief and accept the reality of the Apollo program.

You also seem to be conflating people who conclude based upon factual evidence with people who conclude based upon opinion, wild speculation, and agendas. For example, above you cite the author of that article’s beliefs about Apollo, Lee Harvey Oswald, and 9/11. Then you admit the evidence is on his side. Yet you equate his level of belief with the alternate explanation crowd who think Apollo was a hoax, Oswald was a patsy, and 9/11 had some other explanation than a dedicated group of terrorists executed a complex plan that took months to plan and prepare in order to fly commercial airlines into public venues. So tell me, why is it that you think it is just as relevant that the nutters can’t convince him to change his opinion as it is that he can’t change theirs? In this example, he has evidence.

That’s the thing, isn’t it? People who believe in these conpiracy theories are immune to evidence, because they don’t accept evidence as paramount. If the evidence conflicts with their ideology, they reject the evidence rather than question their oppinion.

It’s probably not wise to give a laundry list of items, since it would border on trolling. I’ve heard them among secularists and the religious, among skeptics and those knee deep in woo-wooism. Suffice to say these misconceptions are easy to find if you keep your eyes and ears open. And the simple expedient of presenting facts is not sufficient to dispel them.

Why yes, I am a cynic. How did you know?

I have had similar problems. Perhaps one of the requirements for a PhD is to have that neural network in your brain the is responsible for saying “I don’t know” removed. Once they get their PhD in basket weaving, the are suddenly awarded all knowledge.

I have tried a number of things. One is betting pay-checks on one of their claims. Most of them hate that and just ignore you, although others often smile. A few comments about putting their money where their mouth is and the subject seems to change. No one will bet with me. Even obvious wins for them.

I think that there are articles about that discuss this problem.

Perhaps you could take notes, analyze the situation and email everyone. When you show up with your pad in tow, the subject might start to get changed. Then again, you might get outcast. A few co-conspirators might be of use.

Another case in point. The religious chatter in a city where Catholics and Protestants live together is substantially reduced over a city where most everyone is the same religion (citation needed). Laughing at and ridiculing Bible thumpers in public makes talking about religion more ‘dangerous’ and potentially embarrassing.

Probably the best history lesson are civil rights. Being a good slave or sitting quietly in the back of the bus got you nowhere. The TV images of blacks being beaten over water fountain rights or voter registration shocked the nation.

My grandfather was apparently some KKK nut case. He was my early political teacher and let me know all the world’s problems were due to n===rs and Jews. I am still uncomfortable around Blacks and Jews. I notice this and try to get to know them, if the situation permits, – I usually initiate a conversation with them. It nevers ceases to amaze me how the boogie men in my mind turn into nice, real people. I wonder as I get older and my frontal lobes deteriorate, I will have James-Watson moments.

Many of these fundie preachers are playing hardball. We need to play ball!

Jim

Sadly, I find many fellow skeptics to be *more* prone to ideological (political) woo woo and extremism than other folks. I try to counter it, but I have found only frustration as you have. It’s even worse because many skeptics think they are smarter than they really are.

Disclaimer: I’m not referring to anyone around these parts or this blog.

I work in an industry where I have regular interactions with folks who have titles like “Chief Scientist” (mine is “lead technologist”, thank you very much). Great to chat with on science.

Mention anything political, and I wind up wanting to go home and hide in a dark room for a bit. It still staggers me how the human mind can be so organized in one area, and a seething cesspool of nonsense in another.

It’s like how some serial killers are actually really smart guys. There’s a dichotomy there that’s difficult to understand.

Are you kidding? Dawkins and Hitchens? Especially with Hitchens, they are advocates of atheism specifically, and have done very little in recent times to counter ID alone, whatever their progress in a semi-related area. Just because someone is loud, it doesn’t mean they’re accomplishing anything.

PZ sure, and Dawkins a little, but the fact you’ve never heard of Mooney and Nesbit simply illustrates an information selection bias. You’re a fan of spreading Atheism, which is okay but not necessarily related to countering ID. I think a lot of confusion is generated by there being a group that sees this as a fight against religion in general, and those that see this as something a lot more limited in scope.