Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds by Elizabeth Kolbert – Discussion Forum

1. What is the main idea of the article?

The main idea of the article was that people may believe that they are demonstrating
reason even though they most often are irrational. Additionally, reason is a trait that came
from evolution, and as humans have evolved, more flaws in our reasoning skills have become
apparent. Overall, it is important that people understand how to make accurate, reasonable
decisions without being influenced too much by their personal emotions. Otherwise, we as
humans will not be able to progress or move forward, as individuals and as a society. My
previous answer to this question focused a lot on opinion. However, after following the
critical reading strategies, I was able to further comprehend the text. Now, I think that my
answer demonstrates a better understanding of the text because I was more specific about the
main point of the article.
2. Who is the audience that Kolbert is addressing? How do you know? (Describe things you
noticed about the publication, the New Yorker, where the article appeared, that gave you
this idea.)
The audience that Kolbert is primarily addressing are adults because the publication, the
New Yorker, produces content that would not be appropriate for children. Additionally, the
references made toward politics and the evidence provided would most likely be difficult for
a child to understand. Furthermore, the illustrations on their covers usually depict current
matters that are going on in the world; therefore, adults would probably have an easier time
understanding the purpose of the cover compared to children.
3. What might be an alternative way to analyze her conclusions? In other words, what might
be another claim that could be debated based on her research?
One could debate that there may be an underlying importance regarding human opinion
and emotion when it comes to making judgements. In paragraph twenty-five, Kolbert makes
a point that science has been a successful, progressive system because of the lack of bias and
the demand for reproducible results, which have been produced by scientists “who have no
motive to confirm them.” One may look at this point and debate that even though the lack of
emotional influence works for scientific purposes, a human’s decision should require some
sort of emotional influence because, ultimately, they decide what is best for themselves.
Again, my answer differs from the first time I read the article because I have a deeper
understanding of the text. The first time I read the article, I had a hard time finding an
opposing view or debate that can arise from Kolbert’s points. After highlighting and taking
notes of the main points that were discussed in the article, it wase easier for me to understand
the stance that Kolbert was expressing and, therefore, I was able to have an easier time
identifying alternative ways to analyze her conclusions.
4. Why do you think Kolbert wrote this article? Does she want readers to behave in a
different way? Think about something differently? Or, something else?
 I think Kolbert wrote this article to not only educate the audience on the development
and current faults of human reasoning abilities, but to additionally persuade readers to take
the information that the article has given them and apply it to their daily lives. As stated by
Kolbert in paragraph twenty-four, “If we […] spent less time pontificating and more trying to
work through the implications of policy proposals, we’d realize how clueless we are and
moderate our views.” This implies that Kolbert wants to inform the audience in ways in
which they can use true reason to make more educated decisions. Though my previous
answer was like my current answer, it was quite broad and lacked explanation.
5. What do the visual elements in the article reveal? In other words, what point does the
painting above the title make? How do the visuals support Kolbert's main claim?
The painting above the text depicts a man in a business suit. The man has ropes tied
around his head, and these ropes are attached to anchors which are keeping the man in place
with his head down. The painting relates to the text because the man’s mind is tied down to
the point where he cannot move forward; the main theme of the text is that if humans cannot
exercise proper reason, they will “remain stuck in place” (Kolbert). Therefore, one can infer
that the anchors in which the man is tied down to may represent his close-minded and
irrational beliefs, which are keeping him stuck in place. Again, my previous answer was
similar; I had written that the painting illustrated the man had been “tied down” by his
thoughts. However, I did not make a clear connection between the painting and article.
6. Do you agree with Kolbert's claims in this article? Why or why not?
I do agree with Kolbert’s main point. I believe that it’s important for humans to acknowledge
any faults they may have made in their judgement, and because of this recognition, a person can
accept that they might not always be right. If people can break the habit of “picking a side” based
on pure emotional influence as well as being more considerate of the other party’s values,
arguments will be purposeful and contribute to progress of some sort. I agreed with Kolbert’s
claims both times. However, now that I have a better understanding of the article, I can make a
more informed decision on whether I agreed or disagreed.