Posted: Sep 27, 2012 3:43 am
by kris
ughaibu wrote:
Nicko wrote:. . . arguing against deniers. . .
The problem is that for denialists, whether of global warming, evolution, free will, moon landings or whatever, denial is their adopted epistemic paradigm. Accordingly, they deny supporting evidence, validity of arguments, etc. There really isn't any point in arguing with such people. Nevertheless, they are an extremely destructive force, they need to be marginalised, somehow.

I agree.

What do you think allows these people to have such a significant impact on public sentiment and belief?