Neocons, neofascists, and tRump supporters, seem to be incapable of making cogent arguments or for that matter, recognizing a cogent counterargument when it is made. Once a scientist has performed an analysis and obtained some results, s/he usually steps back and asks probing internal questions about their work. How could I be wrong? Am I missing anything? What are the essential components of my work and what parts are secondary, being less important? Do I make too many secondary-supporting arguments? (An over abundance of small supporting details can actually weaken the crucial, major points as these can detract from the essential themes.) These types of questions are the mark of an individual using formal reasoning.

It is the lack of asking self-probing questions and the inability to understand the hierarchical importance of evidence that leads to the failure of some people to recognize or make cogent arguments. When all facts are of equal importance then irrelevant facts or even opinions taken as facts have equal weight in their minds. They also tend to accept unsubstantiated claims (i.e. alternative facts) as being as valid as any real fact. All arguments are then reduced in their minds to a “s/he said versus s/he said” case, where the individual being the most adamant, the most boisterous, and most unyielding is believed to have won their case in the minds of neocons, neofascists, and tRump supporters. It is also the reason those people will make dismissive counterarguments and then demand proof that they are wrong. It is merely an attempt to shift the burden of proof to their opponent with them being the final arbitrator of all arguments.