A "Convincing Methodology" is a methodology used to convince someone of something. Debunkers are often faced with the problem of people who reject evidence and reasoning in favor of their own deeply held belief - the problem is how do you convince them of the actual facts of the matter. Various people over the years have given short methodologies in list format for how they think it's best to go about this. This thread is to gather those that are relevant, and discuss them. Hopefully in the process of this overview, we might learn something about what works, and what does not. This was prompted by an article by Michael Shermer, in which he has his own list: https://www.scientificamerican.com/...someone-when-facts-fail/?WT.mc_id=SA_FB_MB_OP I think this kind of boils down to "be polite, and try to work from common ground". I'm not entirely sure what he means by #6 - but perhaps it's to let people know that it's actually okay to be wrong about one little thing. Just because contrails persist it does not mean that chemtrails are not real. Often people push back against even the slightest tiny correction. A key thing is getting them to accept that one thing is wrong - a "wedge debunking", for want of a better term.