Tomi Lahren and Evidence: Can Something Be True Even If You Don't Like It?

Sorry to pick on Tomi Lahren again, but her talk on Fox News yesterday perfectly displays a point that I was planning to make anyway: that people often refuse to believe evidence because they dislike the consequences of believing that evidence. I commented a few days ago about Stevie Wonder's musically-accompanied Hand in Hand Hurricane Harvey telethon speech about global warming, when he said, "Anyone who believes that there is no such thing as global warming must be blind or unintelligent; Lord, please save us all." 

NASA, global warming graph

Lahren responded with her usual outrage. She did not, however, present any evidence against global warming. Instead, she warned that to control global warming would have harmful consequences: "See," she protested, "everyone else is supposed to conserve, adapt, or watch their industries go under. The rest of us are supposed to let our energy-producing communities shut down because Beyoncé, Leo DiCaprio, and Stevie Wonder have made climate change their default religion and on-stage talking point." In other words, she argued that global warming was false because restricting the fossil fuel industry would hurt the fossil fuel industry. Rather circular, no? 

Psychologists Troy Campbell and Aaron Kay have published and documented a theory that they call "solution aversion." Their research shows that conservatives were unlikely to accept evidence about global warming because they dislike the policies that might reduce global warming. They also found that liberals were often unwilling to accept evidence about gun control because they were reluctant to accept the policy consequences. As a result, political opinions become hardened, and people are unwilling to change their opinions even if evidence shows that their opinions are wrong. We see this in ordinary life. For example, cigarette smokers might be reluctant to believe that smoking harms them because they enjoy smoking. Bacon lovers might be reluctant to believe that nitrates are dangerous to eat because they love bacon. A college friend of mine years ago refused to admit that her boyfriend was cheating on her because she didn't want to break up with him.

Lahren, always on the lookout for liberal hypocrisy, also piled on some ad hominem attacks: "what makes Leo DiCaprio, Beyoncé, or Stevie Wonder so noble in this climate change crusade? Huh? How did they get to the event last night? Did they walk? Did they take public transit? Did they even fly commercial? Oh yeah, I forgot, conservation efforts only apply to the little people. Screw coal country, Hollywood liberals and loud-mouth entertainers know what’s best for you." That is, she saw no reason that the coal industry should suffer unless the entertainment stars were willing to suffer, too. None of this, of course, had anything to do with the evidence for or against global warming. It did, however, have everything to do with the way people think.

Of course, civility was lacking on both sides, was it not? Stevie Wonder started the controversy by accusing global warming deniers of being "blind or unintelligent." Nobody likes to be insulted. Going one better, Tomi Lahren responded with sarcasm, complaining about "Hollywood liberals and loud-mouth entertainers." Well, once again, nobody likes to be insulted. Insults don't persuade people to change. Neither, sadly, does evidence. 


P.S. Long-overdue apologies are due to my professor, Charles Larson, who told me in 1973 that evidence doesn't persuade people, because I didn't believe him. I really wanted him to be wrong, which was a case of solution aversion on my part! Also, Larson's book makes an important distinction between the pragmatic and unifying styles of persuasion. We all need more unity, don't we? But Wonder and Lahren were not unifying, were they?