2) Never believe that one, who disagrees with you on matters of evidence and / or argumentation and /or values, do so because one is "malicious", or "insane", or "ignorant",
I disagree Vortex, including but not limited to the the constraint 'Never'. In general, we give our casual discussion partners the benefit of a doubt of course. However...
A. There is a US Court defined standard, which constitutes the litmus for maliciousness, particularly on the part of a party pretending to represent science. It was reiterated as precedent in Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of San Francisco: Case No. CGC-16-550128, Dewayne Johnson, Plaintiff, v. Monsanto Company, Defendant. The following is extracted and condensed from that case.
Malice and Oppression in the Name of Science
/philosophy : the law : high crimes : oppression/ : malice which results in the oppression of a targeted segment of a population is measured inside three litmus elements.
First, is the population at risk able to understand and make decisions with regard to the science, technology or any entailed mechanism of its risk?
Second, has an interest group or groups crafted the process of science or science review and communication in a unethical fashion so as to steer its results and/or interpretation in a desired direction?
Third, has a group sought to attack, unduly influence, intimidate or demean various members of society, media, government or the targeted group, as a means to enforce their science conclusions by other than appropriate scientific method and peer review.
I. Have a group or groups targeted or placed a population at other than natural risk inside a scientific or technical matter
a. who bears a legitimate stakehold inside that matter
b. who can reasonably understand and make self-determinations inside the matter
c. whom the group(s) have contended to be illegitimate stakeholders, or as not meriting basic human rights or constitutionality with regard to the matter?
II. Have these group or groups contracted for or conducted science methods, not as an incremental critical path means of investigation, rather only as means to
a. promote a novel technology, product, service, condition or practice which it favors, and
b. negate an opposing study or body of research
c. exonerate the group from reasonable liability to warn or protect the stakeholders at risk
d. exonerate the group from the burden of precaution, skepticism or followup scientific study
e. cover for past scientific mistakes or disadvantageous results
f. damage the reputation of dissenting researchers
g. influence political and legislative decisions by timing or extrapolation of results
h. pose a charade of benefits or detriment in promotion/disparagement of a market play, product or service
i. establish a monopoly/monopsony or to put competition out of business?
III. Have these group(s) enlisted officers, directors, or managing agents, outside astroturf, undue influence, layperson, enthusiast, professional organization or media entities to attack, intimidate and/or disparage
a. stakeholders who are placed at risk by the element in question
b. wayward legislative, executive or judicial members of government
c. dissenting scientists
d. stakeholders they have targeted or feel bear the greatest threat
e. neutral to challenging media outlets
f. the online and social media public?
B. In addition, as a former Director in Intelligence I can tell you that not everyone who stirs a point of view is operating from mere bias and difference of opinion. Some people serve as inchoate or paid activists for specific causes, organizations and movements which support the delineated set of activities court-defined by A above. They don't give a damn about the subject, don't give a damn about you nor your family - they are there to push a specific agenda or political movement, punish specific stakeholders, and harm specific opposing forces - supported usually by an entity who either will not be impacted by the decision, or serves to benefit from the decision - to the harm of the stakeholders involved.
C. There are those who just are out to hurt people who are different from them, or whom they have targeted for injury or extinction. They want to see the world or specific cultures burn. They throw rocks at police attempting to save a life. They will put on any costume in this process. Virtue, justice, environment. goodness. But their fruits rarely match the costume. These are the malicious and purposefully ignorant.
D. Finally, if I am a bricklayer - and I am arguing with a person of influence who is neither 1. an at-risk stakeholder in the structure being made, and 2. has never even touched a brick in their life. And they pretend that their opinion is just as valid as the bricklayer's in how the bricks should be stacked and employed - and this results in harm...
... this is activist-ignorance which can be defined as malicious in its derivation - the point at which maliciousness and incompetence become one ethical entity in a court's eyes. It is a standard called 'scienter' - orchestrating in advance, a normally perfunctory set of events such that they are arranged to cause harm to a targeted entity, through fraud or disruption of a normal praxis.
Agency versus Bias
Bias is the Titanic's habit of failing to examine its ice berg alerts.
Agency is the Titanic telling the ship issuing ice berg alerts to 'shut up'.
If all we suffered from was mere bias, things might even work out fine.
But reality is that we are victims of agency, not bias.