Objection: People not interested in rational argument

f
Objection:

People are generally not interested in deciding on their beliefs rationally, and so would not be interested in participating in Theory Mapping, and would not be influenced by the results. This may be for various reasons:

• Meaning and value: their existing beliefs provide meaning to their lives. For instance, I have heard it argued that conspiracy theorists gain a sense of meaning from their mission to uncover conspiracies, and so would strongly resist any evidence to the contrary.
• Perceived self-interest: their existing beliefs may be more convenient. For instance, I have heard it argued that one reason for scepticism about global warming is because it is an 'inconvenient truth' which would require making sacrifices. Cognitive dissonance theory also argues that we have inertia against changing our behaviour, so if information comes in which is inconsistent with our behaviour our first response is to try to dismiss the information (cognitive dissonance theory is about psychological discomfort that is caused by inconsistency within our beliefs and actions).
  

Responses:

1. Number of irrational people overestimated
From talking to people on both sides of a debate, I find that both like to portray the other side as not open to rational debate. For instance, atheists see Christians as irrational, while Christians see atheists as irrational! This is because up until now there has not been a method to allow debates to be conducted efficiently, and so people get frustrated when trying to engage others in dialogue. Theory Mapping can solve this problem.

2. Theory Mapping would increase people's incentive to think rationally
Theory Mapping will provide objective evidence about the incoherency of particular theories and world views, which will be hard to ignore. This will create much higher cognitive dissonance than other methods of debate, and so will force people to either change their beliefs or engage in the debate to defend them.

3. Those who genuinely are not interested in rational argument are not important
Yes, there will always be some people who are not interested in logical argument. But by not being willing to engage in a rational debate (or if they do engage, not being willing to play by the rules) they would be shown for who they are and hence marginalised.
f