Thread by @c0nc0rdance

I've spent some time observing amateur religious apologetics, and my feeling is that #science and apologetics are precise opposites.

Science starts with observation and reaches conclusion.

Apologetics start with a conclusion and re-interpret observations to fit.

The same rational method (starting from a conclusion) is observable in other types of denialism. #FlatEarthers are a clear illustration, as they reinterpret everything we know about our Solar System, but you see it in vaccine denial and AIDS denialist movements.

Lastly, I think you can see it in how we rationalize our political positions. You may have noticed that no matter what Trump does, his base find a charitable or positive interpretation. Same is no doubt true for past Democratic presidents.

I keep hoping that people will finally cross a line and come to a realization by sheer force of fact... but that assumes a rational, evidence->conclusion mentality. For so many emotional topics, we humans revert to conclusion->evidence apologetics.

No matter what happens, there will still be a solid group who are in apologetics mode. The more painful it becomes to admit they are wrong, the more deeply invested they become, the more fervent the rationalization process.

I don't think you convince an apologist with facts.

To be honest, I don't know how you convince an apologist at all... I never managed it directly.

Any ideas?