Completely off-topic from the article, but objective data doesn't go deep enough to engender trust for another reason: If I don't agree with your position, and you show me objective data, I have to trust your data (or the source of your data), and that you haven't cherry-picked your source. Essentially, I have to trust you to be able to trust your data. So your data isn't going to make me trust you.
I used to think that objective data would make people believe in the truth and they would in turn mend their beliefs. The Google’s ethis of @data is always correct” seemed to confirm my belief. However i see that stories also move people in ways that data cannot. For example, I cannot understand why inspite of the available data people do not believe in vaccination. Instead, they believe in stories of kids getting autism because of mmr vaccine.<p>Is there an evolutionary benefit to believing in stories than in data? Maybe it helps save mental/psychological energy. Even the religions have mythological stoies. Or have we moderns changed so much that we want to believe in data than in stories?
Mr. McGuire: I want to say one word to you. Just one word.<p>Benjamin: Yes, sir.<p>Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?<p>Benjamin: Yes, I am.<p>Mr. McGuire: Metadata.
the three-legged stool of rhetoric is comprised of logos, ethos, and pathos, and if you think that just because you’ve got a really really strong logos leg that it’ll work out fine and everyone will agree with you without any trouble or difficulty, you are sorely mistaken.