With whom it is useless to argue. Why is it useless to argue with people? Useful and useless dispute - what is the main difference

Hello to all lovers of debate! At one time I was very fond of participating in all kinds of discussions, especially with those who hold opposing points of view on a particular issue. Based on this, after a while I roughly figured out a list of topics - something that it is useless to argue about.

Useful and useless dispute - what is the main difference?

Truth is born in disputes

But more often - the desire to punch the opponent in the face

You should immediately give yourself the installation that you will not waste time on a useless argument. And this article will help you learn how to quickly determine whether it is worth spending time and effort on the topic of discussion or not.

So, the argument is useful, as a result of which:

• a more effective strategy of action is outlined than that which would be determined unilaterally
• found out any new and unexpected facts, studies of practical importance

For example, one side believes that apples should be picked a little underripe, and the other - slightly overripe. As a result, they agree that they will conduct an experiment: a third of the apples will be harvested unripe, the second third when ripe, and the rest in a week. Having done this, they eventually determine from the result when it is best to pick apples. That is, here the debate helped to come to a new solution.

Another option is a scientific discussion, which allows a person to take a broader look at some issue, even if he does not immediately find any non-standard solution. Usually, after such a debate, both sides begin to further study the information received. For example, one claims that Stalin expelled the Chechens because of their aggressiveness, and the second because of their habits of blood feuds, which would greatly interfere with writing denunciations against them. And after the dispute, both interlocutors begin to study more closely the policy of Stalin and his associates in order to clarify this issue. This is also an example of a productive debate.

However, most often people get involved in disputes not for the sake of resolving any issue, but for the sake of a banal desire to show themselves to be right and omniscient. Naturally, this does not lead to anything sensible, and always ends up with both sides remaining in their opinion, proudly or bashfully retreating.

Useful and useless discussion topic: what's the difference?

Pay attention to the fact that in the example about apples, the subject of the dispute is specific, and most importantly, knowledge is verifiable.

That is, here the correctness and incorrectness of the interlocutor's point of view is easy to check. If apples picked unripe later turn out to be tastier than overripe ones, will be stored longer, then the knowledge of the first interlocutor is correct. And vice versa.

Similarly, it is easy to test any other specific knowledge. If the opinion of a certain cycling coach leads to the fact that his athletes show a greater increase in performance, then his positions and views are more correct. Measurements here can be made quite specific. If the chef, relying on his tricks, makes the dishes the most delicious, then his life hacks are the most effective. There is no point in proving anything in words in such cases.

But there are also areas of human life where it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to verify the correctness of certain provisions. Therefore, the controversy in the relevant issues is simply meaningless. For example, how do you check the correctness of political or religious views? Almost nothing.

In this case, you will actually begin to discuss the chimera, and it is impossible to agree on a chimera. You can easily agree that it is better to use certified, albeit expensive, fireworks for the New Year. But you will never agree on which of the religions is true and which is the most false. Because it is possible to discuss pyrotechnics quite objectively (it is real and tangible). But to discuss the higher forces that are not objectively detected, it will not work in detail.

Therefore, below we will consider a list of topics that I generally do not recommend anyone to discuss, unless you set out to better understand this area of ​​​​knowledge, understand the worldview of other people, (well, or just troll them). As soon as the conversation starts to go in this direction, it is better to take the discussion in another direction.

Politics

Ako wish you would destroyjateљa, and with њim about politics

If you want to lose a friend, talk to him about politics

(Serbian folk wisdom)

The problem when discussing political phenomena, decisions, and politicians themselves is such that those discussing cannot agree on what is good and what is bad. In addition, political propaganda influences the subconscious of a person in such a way that he begins to consider any political beliefs as part of his personality. And, accordingly, to take with hostility any information that contradicts them (because it is perceived as an attempt on one's self).

Therefore, it is very easy to quarrel on political topics, but it is almost impossible to agree (unless you are a master of persuasion). I know this from my experience with the Stalinists. At least one conversation will not change their point of view (you can only shake their conviction very gently).

Religion

This is an even more dangerous area of ​​discussion than politics. Please note that many denominations say that after death a person will either go to heaven or hell, or be reborn in another being. And it depends on how strictly he will adhere to the canons of his belief system.

Heavenly existence, being in a hellish fire, being reborn into a stone or an animal… reducing it all to a common denominator, you will notice that in fact life is promised here after death. Let it be different, even if not the same as now, but still ... That is, in fact, the believer is promised immortality (albeit in relation to the soul). The fear of death is the strongest fear of any person. Therefore, believers (usually fanatics) can react very harshly to any attempts to somehow criticize religious beliefs. So, getting involved in conversations about religion, you can be in real danger.

And you won’t be able to agree on which religion is more correct, whether atheism and agnosticism are better, simply because you won’t be able to agree on the verification criteria.

Morality and Morality

In the case of moral principles, attitudes, the projection mechanism works: “If this is forbidden to me, then what right does he have to violate the ban? How can he disagree with the ban? Therefore, for example, a fruitful conversation between a hypocrite and a person of free sexual views will not work - this will result in a completely unproductive dispute.

By the way, for the same reason, it is very difficult to convince a person of strict views on love relationships.

To allow oneself something internally, to free oneself from prohibitions is a most difficult spiritual task, and it is easier for a person to forbid something to others than to allow it to himself. This is especially true for intimate pleasures.

Therefore, without unnecessary need, it is better not to raise conversations about moral principles. Otherwise, waste your time and waste your energy.

I sincerely wish you not to waste time on empty discussions, but to go about your life and reach new heights in your aspirations. And I will try to help you with this useful information. So subscribe to the blog so you don't miss it. See you soon!

Is it useless to argue?

Each of the freethinkers has had occasion to argue more than once about stupid social principles, the expediency of creating a family, having children, patriotism, nationalism, religion ... And each time a dispute with the townsfolk or with carriers of certain psychological viruses ended in a draw.

A typical argument consists of two parts - a race of arguments and a final part on the part of the opponent "I was brought up this way / I like it this way / I have the right to live as I want / everyone has their own opinion." Particularly persistent opponents can reduce the argument to infinity even in the first part, skillfully manipulating the arguments. You can do the same yourself, but if the opponent runs out of steam, then the argument ends with the second stage.

Arguments... they look quite logical.
But, do you really believe that a man gets a wife "because she cooks to eat", "because he is always wrapped up to fuck" (there are a lot of jokes about this just that sex ends shortly after the wedding)?

Do you really believe that a person gets a girlfriend in order to make it "interesting to talk" with her? If this is true, then obviously he is lying. Yourself.

Do you really believe that a person believed in God because he considered the arguments given in the Bible to be convincing and logical? If this is true, then obviously he is lying. Yourself.

Do you really believe that a person has a child because he thought it would improve and make his life easier? "Pension fund", "glass of water", "successor of business"... If a person really believes in this, then, obviously, he is lying. Yourself.

Do you really believe that a man found it logical to assert the greatness of a nation with a slave mentality? If this is true, then obviously he is lying. Yourself.

Because all of the above things are taken on faith and are not done because the opponent found them logical. If it were logical, then it is logical that freethinkers would switch to this. It is the lack of logic in the answers to these fundamental questions from the life of society that made me doubt the viability of all of the above.

A person was either trained to "live like everyone else" ("I was brought up like that", "I like it" - if a person likes something and he does not want to analyze - these are the results of training), or he compensates for his weakness (religion), or he is looking for a mother (marriage), or he does not know how to inflate his HSV in other ways (nationalism), or he wants to play God / considers life finished / wants to take out the attitude of his parents towards him / stupidly did not know how to protect himself (birth of children) ...

This is by no means an exhaustive list of true "arguments", I've only touched on it.

The arguments for the dispute ... this is his value, he holds on to them, giving out in every dispute, otherwise his world will collapse. He needs to argue, he wants it, he proves it not to you, but to himself. It can always answer "but ..." and reissue one of the list arguments.

Have you noticed that the list of arguments is always about the same, on any topic? And the search for the next, "very, most lethal", simply clogs the brains ... And the opponent can always repeat the old argument with the prefix "but ...".

No point in arguing?

In the form that I described above - no. Other methods are needed. You can immediately dig deeper. For example, arguing about whether a person is weak, and not "how much God loves you", whether parents are always right instead of "should you have children", whether a person is strong in his achievements or by adhering to strangers, instead of "which nation is cooler", about fears, about strength, about logic...

(By the way, I have had such cases when I strongly annoyed the opponent, he ran out of arguments and he gave me these true deeper arguments)

This is a deeper debate. But this is not yet the core; and at this level there is a husk of argument that hides the truth. We have to get to it. Let's search, instead of fueling the narrow-minded confidence in their downloads with useless disputes. Look for a supporting structure. Maybe closer to the core it will no longer be an argument, but some other kind of dialogue.

(21) Re: Is it useless to argue?

Note to those who argue: sometimes the opponent leaves the argument like this: "I have my own opinion, and you are trying to impose yours on me," in response to arguments. It is important to emphasize here that a dispute is a mutual argumentation and counterargumentation of opinions, and that you simply cannot physically "impose your opinion" by definition.

In this case, there is a hang-up like - "you don't even have your own opinion, what's the point of arguing with you." But if you think about it, why continue the dialogue with such people? If you need to get some benefit from a person, then isn’t it easier to get down to his level, solve the problem and leave, leaving him to continue chewing on his installations. And if the dialogue is not for the sake of profit, direct or indirect, then why continue it? (unless you're arguing for the sake of raising your fsv or some social candy)

(22) Re: Is it useless to argue?

And if the dialogue is not for the sake of profit, direct or indirect, then why continue it? (unless you're arguing for the sake of raising your fsv or some social candy)

I see it as an interesting complex psychological task, even a hacker psychological task.

(23) Re: Is it useless to argue?

The fact is that the layman often does not know why he "starts a family / honors victory / speaks of the greatness of the nation / makes a girlfriend." In disputes on the go, he invents arguments, or uses ready-made ones (in particular, not being a free thinker, I did the same). After arguments against philistine values ​​are made, the philistine often experiences a feeling of apathy and resentment towards the opponent. But it is precisely these feelings that should push him to more reasonable and correct conclusions. In the future, analyze the reasons for your values ​​and draw conclusions. Instead, he continues to console himself with his "correct" arguments, and then completely forgets about the argument.

Well, in order for the dispute to come out useful, you need not to load the layman with arguments (as trolls do), but ask him questions about his "values" as impartially as possible. Thus, to isolate him from the emotional perception of reality, transferring him to a completely logical discussion. In an unemotional state, a person will not lie either to himself or to his opponent, because there will no longer be a reason for lying.

(24) Re: Is it useless to argue?

Arguments can help only if the chela is already really fucked up, but he does not realize why, or realizes but does not see any alternatives.
Arguing requires preliminary practice. Everything must be done unobtrusively, leading to the fact that people themselves ask questions.
It is necessary to build such a relationship that he does not perceive you as a person: a maximum of dispassion and a maximum of interest in the good of the interlocutor.
Give respect. Show that you are not stupidly philosophizing, but actually putting it into practice.
Show the joy that you get, but he does not, due to his unawareness.
Arguments must be selected in accordance with the person himself. It largely depends on how he wants to feel his importance. For example, for those who want to feel elevated and with a rich inner world, you just need to show that only dirt lies at the basis of all their high spiritual impulses. If such a person will tell something, then most likely any of his stories will elevate him. It is necessary to poke his nose into his every phrase and parse it with him. Ask questions, such as why he said this or that, why he remembered this incident, and not that one, etc. You can never take his words as truth - he will say this or that just to make some impression. You need to pay attention to gestures and to the picture as a whole. In this case, very often you need to trust your intuition (of course, if you have statistics that allow you to trust it). If intuition is not trusted, then you can simply not get it that he fucks himself from the first to the last word.
And as for the family-career-comfort-life, these are just consequences of unconsciousness. Saying something to a chela about this will not make him conscious. He must see that he is driven by the desire to please and the fear of not being liked, the desire to be interesting, lust, etc. Therefore, the arguments for each - their own ...

It is generally accepted that truth is born in a dispute. This is a very dubious statement, because even in scientific discussions or expert opinions, the parties rarely reach consensus. And in ideological, political or social disputes, a shaky consensus, as a rule, is achieved by force, diktat, submission, but not by convincing arguments.

A person can be taught the rules of thinking, logic, discussion, but it is absolutely impossible to knock out of his head either his unconscious motives, or natural nonsense, or even that which has been hammered into it for centuries by power and society. I'm not talking about the fact that most of the living are characterized by black-and-white thinking, illogicality, peremptory assessments and primitive formulations. In addition, such people have a mass syndrome. They speak in the name of not their own hard-won or deeply experienced truth, but "the truth of all." They are driven not by the desire to know the truth, but by conformism, the fear of falling out of the mainstream, the fear of remaining in the minority. I'm not talking about the power of the state brainwashing the people by dictatorial or totalitarian regimes.

The current brainwashing technologies have far surpassed the primitive practice of voodoo, easily coding the people for violence, war, destruction, hysteria, wraith. Since all this happens on a subconscious level, the people become infected and fall ill with the same nonsense that their crazy leaders rave about.

As the practices of Bolshevism, fascism, Nazism have shown, thousands of years of humanization can be reversed in the shortest possible time. Psychotropic methods and means, without any lobotomy or surgery, make it possible to dehumanize or turn an entire nation into cattle in just two or three years of petty demons in power. I would say that much of what is once again happening around us is Satanism, or a quasi-religion based on violence and lies. Such a virus periodically infects states and peoples that are not viable or lagging behind in their development, starting to exterminate people of high consciousness, turning the spiritual evolution of mankind back, back: into nothing, into chaos, into nowhere.

By the way, for such a "conversion" there is no need for any special secret "psychotronic weapon" - the weapons of mass zombification have long been successfully used by television, radio and the press of the servants of the devil. Moreover, these servants, again acting on the subconscious of the nation, achieve phenomenal results: a disappearing small handful of the population is able to escape from their influence, which is then subject to expulsion or destruction.

The practice of Nazism showed that it is impossible to convince the mentally infected population by anything other than a long and systemic denazification, which was carried out by rather harsh methods by the Americans in post-war Germany. However, no one argued with the Germans at that time either, but simply drop by drop Nazism etched them out of them by demonstrating all the horrors of inhumanity and dehumanization.

It is impossible to argue with zombies, because consciousness, reason is opposed by a huge unconscious “tail”, which stretches much deeper than the Neolithic and goes into the chthonic depths of life.

Recently, Californian scientists have found out another interesting pattern that explains the absolute futility of disputes, not at the psychological, but at the physiological level. It turns out that at the moment when someone forces a person to change his mind, a certain part of the brain reacts to this as to an external threat. Because of this phenomenon, the one to whom counterarguments are addressed perceives them as a form of violence and is further strengthened in his version of the "truth" even when it is from the devil.

“Hasn't Darwin's theory been refuted yet?” some wonder. “Do you yourself believe in the theory of evolution?” others ask. “All this has not yet been proven,” say still others.

These are just some of the replicas that can be heard, for example, during a tour of the Darwin Museum. Sometimes, opponents fiercely shake their spears, sometimes they give dozens of arguments, not wanting, however, to listen to the answer, sometimes, on the contrary, they demand irrefutable evidence hic et nunc... We do not always manage to convince them. Surprisingly, during the years of socialist construction, when the "materialistic evolutionary idea" was supported at the state level, we have forgotten how to argue on this topic. We continued to rely on a highly educated society, believed that the anti-Darwinian protests in the “most reading country” had long since passed, that the essence of evolutionary teaching had been mastered, clear, and comprehended. In the end, they were wrong. Already, the school curriculum in biology is being attacked, pickets are being held against the "Darwin theory" in Moscow, and requests are being submitted to the prosecutor's office about the legality of its teaching... you have to open it, you have to learn to answer the same questions again, learn the art of persuasion.

Sentence analysis

A visitor to the Darwin Museum, as a rule, is not radical in his judgments. Many express their admiration for the museum exposition, exhibition projects, the work of employees, are satisfied that such a museum exists, are interested in its subject matter, and accept its concept. It was all the more interesting to get their answers to questions concerning both evolutionary doctrine and ideas about science in general. Given the experience of museum communication, the results were expected. The most common answers to questions were:

This small set of questions and answers (during the survey, additional questions were also asked that were not included in the above table) allows us to draw three important conclusions that lead us directly to revealing the contradiction between the content and perception of the theory:

1. The respondents, as a rule, do not have a clear idea of ​​the content of the subject under discussion and make their judgments on the basis of some fragmentary information. The nested content often does not correspond to the content of the concepts, hypotheses and theories about which they are expressed. Most of the respondents do not see the difference between classical Darwinism and the synthetic theory of evolution (STE). Many are hearing about it for the first time.

It should be noted that at present, the school curriculum provides a potential opportunity to obtain clear ideas about the content of the theory, although biologists have many serious complaints about the nature of the presentation of material in textbooks. Correct, accessible and modern presentation of the evolutionary concept, unfortunately, often depends solely on the teacher.

2. Evolutionary ideas are often perceived in extremely simplified, literal and vulgarized forms, which leads to a fundamentally incorrect interpretation of the provisions of the theory.

There is a fundamental difference between the adaptation of a scientific text and its simplification: in the first case, the work takes place mainly in the language field, in the second - in the content field, which can easily lead to a distorted understanding of the essence of what is being stated. We all remember that the vulgar understanding of the phenomenon of natural selection by social Darwinists led to terrible results.

3. The main conflict of opinions lies not in the field of the provisions of the evolutionary doctrine, but in the field of ideas about the origin of man, his place and status in the modern picture of the world.

It is interesting to note that there are no clear ideas about the content of other scientific theories, for example, the theory of relativity. The subjects could neither formulate its provisions nor determine the area of ​​its interests. However, unlike the evolutionary theory, they fully admit that the theory of relativity reflects the true state of things.

Deconstruction

The last conclusion is not something fundamentally new. The understanding that the problem of the origin of man is not the subject of discussion in The Origin of Species... - the seminal evolutionary work of Charles Darwin (Darwin, 1859) - is known to anyone who was not too lazy to even flip through it. Another thing is curious: why the topic (then just a hypothesis), which was covered in detail in his later work The Origin of Man and Sexual Selection (Darwin, 1871), caused an unprecedented public outcry, such that over time it not only became identified with ideas about the theory in in general, but also conveyed to her that negative attitude that is so noticeable in modern society? The answer seems extremely simple to me - the conclusions of this work cast doubt on the ontological status of a person in the Western world, a special status that has been affirmed and supported by European culture for thousands of years: a person is exceptional, god-like, everything is subordinate to him, everything exists for him. Denying such a status to a person inevitably leads to emotional experience, or at least to emotional indignation, which is largely facilitated by the vulgar interpretation of certain provisions of the book. The most striking example - the example of a hypothetical ancestor - is well known to everyone: the “crown of creation”, created only “in the image and likeness of God” (the former basis of status), as an alternative, a creature is offered that in the same culture has always been used as its own a satirical image, a parody of a person - a monkey (perceived as a proposal for a new basis for status). Willy-nilly you shudder!

As a result, we have a psychological protest at the individual level and a socio-cultural problem in general.

However, this explanation alone will probably not suffice; after all, few people protest against the traditional totemic mythology of various peoples, according to the plots of which people also come from animals. Apparently, there is another important aspect that needs to be taken into account. Let's try to identify it by understanding what the scientific picture of the world is.

About science and why humanity abandoned the cognitive schemes of the past?

Cognition of the world is possible in three main logical-empirical forms: mythological, philosophical (speculative or speculative knowledge) and scientific. The change of these forms is well traced both in social history and in the individual development of the personality. All these forms have their own grounds for separating true and false knowledge:

Interestingly, as we move from mythological knowledge to scientific knowledge, the degree of its subjectivity decreases, which is achieved with an increase in the initial number of comprehended facts, their maximum consideration in the construction of theories, and, finally, the application of the principle of intersubjectivity (any observation can be repeated under the same conditions and with the same result by another observer). Knowledge becomes independent of what even in antiquity Parmenides called "opinion". And this trend is fundamentally important, since it opens up the prospect of using the possibilities of the world, predicting an objective result in advance. In a world of fantasy or speculation, this is not easy, but scientific thinking (with the observer out of brackets) makes it a reality. Practice has shown that designed satellites fly, a peaceful atom gives energy, knowledge of the laws of genetics (the very thing that underlies the postulates of STE) is successfully used in medicine. The scientific picture of the world has led to the scientific and technological progress of mankind, which, in comparison with mythological and philosophical knowledge, allows us to speak of scientific knowledge as positive knowledge.

Separate from the above are religious and mystical pictures of the world, which are partly characterized by both mythological and philosophical features. Their main difference, however, is that divine or mystical revelation is taken as the basis of truth, which is considered ( sic! this is fundamentally important!) necessary and sufficient a condition for constructing a true (respectively, religious or mystical) picture of the world. From the point of view of science, such a picture of the world is subjective, but let us pay attention to the fact that within the framework of the concept itself this contradiction is overcome: the status of the subject here is greatly increased, it is divine (in religious pictures of the world), and the divine “opinion” in such a picture of the world is no longer perceived as "opinion", it is perceived as truth. And if we take into account that the creator is identified with the world to one degree or another, then, consequently, the picture of the world is presented as objective. The basis, of course, is metaphysical (it lies in the field of judgments, and not empirical reality), but undoubtedly, it has the right to exist.

Until now, we have not named the picture of the world to which the opponents of "Darwinism" usually appeal - there was no special meaning in this, all this is well known. Another thing is curious: why two pictures of the world, based on different foundations, using different methods of cognition, different criteria of truth, and ultimately representing the conscious choice of an individual, compete so clearly in the mind of this same individual. It would seem, choose any and live harmoniously. If true faith is enough, then why turn to science? However, it is scientific arguments that are fundamentally important for opponents (the entire creationism that mimics science is based on this), there is no talk of theological constructions. A new discursive practice appears, representing in essence the discourse of the impossible, an incongruous combination of religious and scientific speech practices. It is in it that the statements “But you yourself believe into the theory of evolution?” as if scientific theory were a fragment of religious reality. In the school curriculum of the subject of biology (the science of biology), it is proposed to seriously consider the theory of creation, and in other cases, to exclude the theory of evolution from the program, on the contrary, as unscientific. We have already shown by the example of the survey that there are no clear ideas about the subject of discussion, or about how science differs from other forms of knowledge. But is it really just a matter of ignorance?

It seems to me that in both pictures of the world there are some conditional spheres of attraction, representations that inspire confidence, look cozy, status and positive. Science enables a person to control the processes of the surrounding world, turns the elemental world into a controlled one. Religion fills life with meaning, builds ethical coordinates, promises the prospect of existence after death, and gives hope. The progressive world of science is seductive. Only if you accept it entirely, with all its sad materialistic conclusions, it is not difficult to understand that such a picture of the world may turn out to be uncomfortable. Another thing is eclectic worldviews built on a mythological model, in which individual ideas are not necessarily in agreement, but with which it is so pleasant to live.

On the possibility of a positive discussion

I once found myself in a situation where I was offered to win an argument about the validity of the evolutionary picture of the world by offering an argument of such persuasive force that I could, without additional justification, induce my opponent to change his mind. I realized that I could not do this, and even if I could, then the arguments given by me would not have any effect: it is impossible to explain the complex in a simple way if the interlocutor does not have the appropriate base. It seems to me that this is precisely the reason for the failure of mutual understanding between the interlocutors in the framework of our dispute. I'll try to explain what I mean.

In the 40s of the 20th century, with the light hand of representatives of the Frankfurt sociological school, the concept of “mass culture” appeared in our lexicon. Dictionaries and reference books often indicate that it is opposed to traditional culture. But accepting this position, it should be clearly understood that we are talking not so much about the opposition of the everyday folk tradition, but rather the intellectual tradition, on the basis of which, among other things, the existence of science became possible. Scientific knowledge as such appeared only thanks to the colossal experience of epistemological errors, and the conclusions of scientific theories are based not only on elementary facts, but also on a rich intellectual heritage that requires comprehension. In mass culture, we are offered only the results of the above experience, for the correct understanding of which a general educational minimum of knowledge and the ability to form correct judgments would suffice, but it is this mass culture (as we have already found out above, created according to the mythological model) that is not always able to allow.

A feature of the confrontation under discussion is that the opponents of the evolutionary doctrine belong mainly to the mass culture (they deal with conclusions and impressions from the conclusions), while the supporters, most often, belong to the traditional culture - the culture of "scribes" (they deal with the foundations). Within the framework of a dispute, each of the parties will always turn to arguments from their own cultural field, and the opponent is just immune to it. And a positive discussion in this case is impossible.

What is the way out of such a difficult situation? Is there a way to solve this socio-cultural problem? From a global perspective, there certainly is. One should only always give priority to education, remember that it should be accessible, learn to think, cultivate in oneself and others an interest in knowledge, answer questions, try to understand the world in which one lives. We have always been able to do this well, and well at any site: educational or museum. It is only necessary not to turn off the chosen path. Only in this way is it possible to come to a correct understanding of things, only in this case can we expect that new truths will be revealed to us that will allow us to take a different look at this infinitely complex, but surprisingly interesting world. And then our socio-cultural problem will disappear by itself. Until then, you will have to learn the art of persuasion, learn rhetoric.

Place of original publication: Darwinism as a sociocultural problem. Experience of polemical interpretation // Objects of paleontological and geological heritage and the role of museums in their study and protection. Collection of scientific works. Kungur, 2013, pp. 10-14.