Hama Neggs
Senior Member.
Remember though there's a spectrum of believers. We are never going to convince those who are in too deep, like Russ Tanner. But there are those more in the middle that will listen to reason.
I'm not talking about some radical adjustment in debunking methodology here. I think the basic idea of polite focussed debunking of specific claims of evidence has been very productive - and continues to be so, with literally thousands of people visiting Metabunk every day, and many of them reading these focussed debunks. I don't want to change that.
What I'm think here is if there are some adjustments, or more specifically additions, to the approach that will make it more effective - allow it to reach more people.
Specifically: is there something we can to to counter the feeling people get that they are being casually dismissed as irrational or stupid? Can we get them to see that "we are not so different, you and I"? And can you do it without them thinking you are playing some kind of mind game?
That's a tough question. Part of the problem stems from trying to argue things from their skewed perspective. You have the: "We are not talking about CONtrails, we are talking about CHEMtrails" response. You have to get them to back up and give up concepts they think are already PROVEN FACTS, because they have seen them repeated as such so many times. You have to bring them to a full stop and realize that virtually everything they accept as factual info is questionable. You can't get them to discuss the whole thing from reasonable middle scientific ground because they don't understand just how UNreasonable their own starting position is.
It's very difficult to suggest that their entire premise is faulty without making them feel like idiots. The truth is, their entire premise is SO faulty, that it IS ridiculous and idiotic. We can argue minutia with them, but the bottom line is, most everything they believe is just flat WRONG.
PS: The entire problem is exacerbated due to people like Tanner continuing to pump out ridiculous notions which are WAAY off-center, scientifically. Seems like you/we have no choice but to find a way to directly confront people like Tanner, not to convince him, but to be able to show how his claims(which form much of the basis for general chemtrail belief) are blatantly false.
Last edited: