Hacker News Reader

I am not happy to hear this idea.

If you convince people that science is true or real not by logic, but by rhetorical tricks, then you are no longer peddling truth; you are blindly proclaiming that science is the only correct epistemology.

View on HN

I hate to be mean but the reason argumentation isn't always about facts is because there's the written (most formal) and the spoken (most informal). Along that spectrum you can be as rigorous as a mathematical proof to being fast and loose with emotive appeals with your arguments. But what's important to take home with this idea is that you construct a logically valid and sound argument that's easy to digest but also emotionally comprehensible. Otherwise, you're going to lose your audience. For example, Vox ran a video on renewable energy from a person who is a conservative (part of the Tea Party movement and supported/advocated-for Donald Trump). She pointed out that to get conservatives on the side of mitigating climate change with adopting renewable energy we have to ditch the climate change rhetoric. We have to go for what drives conservatives: competition, cheaper energy, and energy independence. Oddly enough, this holds true back in my home state with Governor Brownback (who I despise) because he's gone against the Kochs with respect to adopting/advocating wind power. Now the wind farms are growing and making a profit for Westar and other power companies in the state. Basically, when trying to convince to an audience you have to know that audience.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com