Me not being swayed by other people's evidence isn't an -ism, I agree. It just means the evidence isn't strong enough. So many people think their evidence is so strong it's irrefutable, but obviously it isn't. Cherry-picking is another issue too: take 3-4 bits of evidence as proof but ignore these other 3-4 bits that suggest something else. Aka: Climate Alarmists!
True enough! But mostly it's a case of "My evidence is golden, your evidence is poo-poo" eh? In fact many folks just glance at the source & reject it. I find that leftists love to judge books by the cover. :/
All 4 of them are just "liberalism" really.
Me not being swayed by other people's evidence isn't an -ism, I agree. It just means the evidence isn't strong enough. So many people think their evidence is so strong it's irrefutable, but obviously it isn't. Cherry-picking is another issue too: take 3-4 bits of evidence as proof but ignore these other 3-4 bits that suggest something else. Aka: Climate Alarmists!
There's a difference between not being persuaded by evidence, and rejecting contradictory evidence outright, though.
True enough! But mostly it's a case of "My evidence is golden, your evidence is poo-poo" eh? In fact many folks just glance at the source & reject it. I find that leftists love to judge books by the cover. :/