Skeptiko being the premier forum on science-meets-spirituality, AFAIK, I thought these three articles would do much good for both sides, showing that when we lack trust in a source, it doesn't matter how many facts or evidence it gives us, we won't believe them; dismissing people as being ignorant ironically makes them more so, while presenting an alternative plausible explanation might be better; and asking the other guy to explain how he reached his beliefs (but not asking for his reasons-- not sure how that differs, hoping someone can explain that to me) can soften their views.
Anyway, I thought these would be useful when being confronted by an aggressive opponent, whether on here, on Twitter, etc.
(These can apply both ways, it should go without saying)
Article on lack of trust and presenting just facts, influences on beliefs:
http://theconversation.com/throwing-science-at-anti-vaxxers-just-makes-them-more-hardline-37721
Article on backfire effect and benefits of presenting alternative explanations:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141113-the-best-way-to-debunk-myths
Article on how to win an argument by asking the other guy to explain how he reached his beliefs (I think, I'm somewhat confused by what it says):
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140521-the-best-way-to-win-an-argument
Anyway, I thought these would be useful when being confronted by an aggressive opponent, whether on here, on Twitter, etc.
(These can apply both ways, it should go without saying)
Article on lack of trust and presenting just facts, influences on beliefs:
http://theconversation.com/throwing-science-at-anti-vaxxers-just-makes-them-more-hardline-37721
Article on backfire effect and benefits of presenting alternative explanations:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141113-the-best-way-to-debunk-myths
Article on how to win an argument by asking the other guy to explain how he reached his beliefs (I think, I'm somewhat confused by what it says):
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140521-the-best-way-to-win-an-argument