While most cable news discussions today look at the substantive aspects of an issue, many leave one scratching one’s head with how one or another party could stick to their beliefs in the situation. Why are some people not amenable to persuasion by facts? Judge Andrew Napolitano enlisted the help of science historian Michael Shermer to figure out why some “reject an obvious order in the universe.”
In this meta-debate about debates and why facts sometimes won’t win them, Shermer argued that much of the reason people often believe outrageous things and refuse to change their opinions based on facts is due to human “tribal nature,” and the fact that confirmation bias– acknowledging facts that prove one’s beliefs and ignoring the rest– can make a person believe they have the facts on their side. “We hold to those beliefs our tribe believes,” Shermer argued.
Judge Napolitano then turned the conversation to the subject of rights, and how rights can be immutable no matter what government they arise in. Shermer acknowledged that he was a “natural rights person” who believes that rights pre-exist laws. He also agreed with the virtues of selfishness proposed by Ayn Rand, though not feeling too comfortable with the word and arguing that people were also “giving and altruistic” by nature.
The segment via Fox Business below:
Have a tip we should know? email@example.com