Perhaps you have seen a dispute with the "zombie" person on any issue. He provides clear evidence, all laid out on shelves ... but it does not affect his misconception.
The opponent does not want to see, do not want to delve into a conversation with him is like a conversation with a 7-year old kid. His, completely refuted the idea, "zombie" is still considered absolutely correct.
Let's look at why this is happening:
There is conventionally 2 types of people: those who are able to change his mind, let's call them "reasonable person" and those whose opinion is an independent constant - "Zombie»
- "Reasonable person" - constantly questioned everything. It does not have absolute authority. I understand that any individual or group may be wrong. The opinion of these people is changed periodically. This quality makes it possible to develop a mentally sane person.
Usually any question there are many points of view. Has received new information and new, better logic design, reasonable man changes his mind. Several times in a row, until eventually comes to the most logical and the most objective opinion. "The picture of the truth" in the mind of a sane, each time becoming more and more high quality and realistic. Also it formed its own unique view (!)
- "Zombie" with blocked brain ----------
Users have constant initially form an opinion.
That is, on any matter - a point of view for the first time will be substantially unchanged sformirovalas- constant. Naprmer: all that is inspired from an early age, school, all that is heard in the media, for the first time. The initial view is transformed into a blind faith. Evidence refuting the facts and did not have the forces against this blind faith. But the original sources are converted to absolute authority. Certainly no own unique opinions can not be - just copy other people's thoughts.
Accordingly, all subsequent points of view are firmly rejected. And people that are contrary to the authorities - are fools in the eyes of "zombie»
There are certainly more malleable people who believe the first comer immediately changing their point of view. But this is crazy or registered doctor. Whether it's childish innocence that quickly passes.
As a conclusion - often (but not always) the rights in dispute is the one who has changed his point of view. And worst of all he sees the situation, who never changed his view on the issue.
Evidence ------------- ------------------
Absolute proof are in mathematics / geometry. In the life of absolute dokzatelstva extremely rare. Only what we can see and touch (and even then there are optical illusions, forgery and imitation). Therefore, almost all our knowledge - is faith. Of course faith is based on logical reasoning and relies primarily on the probability of plausibility. That is the person assesses the probability point of view and takes the one with the greatest probability.
Example: you do not have absolute proof that the earth is "spherical". Of course there are photos, videos, testimonies, opinion influencers, etc. However, all these "proofs" can be fabricated.
It is necessary to estimate who may be advantageous to distort the like, whether it is difficult to falsify, whether oddities and so, a lot of points. Logically processing lots of elements, sane person around are assessing the probability of 99, 9% of all that is true, and 0, 1% - that all this is fabricated. And then simply believes that the earth is "spherical", calls this knowledge and truth. However, it is understood that the faith and never consider their knowledge of the ultimate truth.
Opinion authority of course adds to the probability percentage point of view, but limited. (Problem of "zombie" - an opinion adds credibility + 100% probability)
--- If we see a low probability of a dispute the plausibility of the opponent, then we try to change his mind.
--- If high - at once or later accept his point of view.
But for the "zombie" probability of credibility it does not matter. Its 0, 1%, it will give out for the ultimate truth (0, 1% + 100mnenie credibility = 100, 1%).
- It is possible therefore surprising and shocking situation: when a person shows a blatant blindness presented clear and obvious evidence.