In conversations today, especially in areas of science, health, and policy, it’s become increasingly common for people to say, “We disagree,” when confronted with facts, data, or evidence that challenges their views. While disagreements are a natural part of human interaction, there is a significant difference between a genuine disagreement and the outright rejection of data. To conflate the two is not only misleading but also counterproductive to meaningful discourse.

The Difference Between Disagreement and Data Rejection

Disagreements arise from differences in perspective, interpretation, or values. For example, people might disagree on the best approach to solve a problem, which political policies are most effective, or even on the moral implications of certain actions. These disagreements are valid and can lead to productive discussions, where each side brings their reasoning, experiences, and perspectives to the table.

However, rejecting data and evidence is not the same as disagreeing. When someone dismisses well-established facts, scientific consensus, or clear evidence because it doesn’t align with their beliefs, they are not engaging in a disagreement. Instead, they are denying reality. This rejection of data undermines the very foundation of rational conversation and makes it impossible to have a meaningful exchange of ideas.

Why Conflating Disagreement with Data Rejection Is Dangerous

Allowing people to equate disagreement with data rejection poses several risks:

1. Erosion of Trust in Science and Expertise: When people reject data and evidence, it diminishes the role of science and expertise in informing decisions. This erosion of trust can have far-reaching consequences, from the spread of misinformation to the undermining of public health initiatives.
2. Stagnation of Progress: Progress relies on our ability to build upon existing knowledge. Rejecting data prevents this accumulation of knowledge and stalls progress. Instead of moving forward, we become stuck in a cycle of repeating the same debunked claims.
3. Polarization: When data rejection is framed as a mere disagreement, it deepens divisions between groups. It creates a false equivalence between evidence-based positions and those based on personal belief or misinformation, leading to further polarization.
4. Undermining Critical Thinking: Conflating disagreement with data rejection encourages a mindset where opinions are seen as equal to facts. This undermines critical thinking and the ability to distinguish between subjective opinions and objective truths.

Setting a New Standard: Rejecting the “We Disagree” Excuse

To address this issue, a new rule must be set: “We disagree” is not an acceptable response when someone rejects data and evidence. If you are communicating with me, I will not allow you to conflate the two.

Here’s how this standard can be applied:

• Clarify the Nature of the Conversation: When someone says “we disagree,” ask them to clarify whether their stance is based on a difference in interpretation or a rejection of the data. If it’s the latter, make it clear that rejecting evidence is not a disagreement; it’s a refusal to engage with the facts.
• Demand Accountability: Hold people accountable for the claims they make. If they reject data, ask for their sources or evidence that supports their position. If they cannot provide credible evidence, point out that their stance is not grounded in reality.
• Promote Evidence-Based Discussion: Encourage conversations that prioritize data and evidence. Make it clear that while differing interpretations are welcome, rejecting the facts is not a legitimate form of disagreement.
• Educate on the Importance of Evidence: Sometimes, people reject data because they don’t understand its significance or how it was obtained. Take the opportunity to explain why the evidence is credible and why it should be considered in the discussion.

Conclusion: Upholding the Integrity of Discourse

In a world where misinformation is rampant and the rejection of facts is often disguised as disagreement, it’s more important than ever to uphold the integrity of our conversations. By refusing to allow the conflation of data rejection with genuine disagreement, we can foster a culture that values truth, evidence, and progress. The next time someone tries to dismiss evidence by saying “we disagree,” remind them that disagreement is not the same as rejecting reality—and that only one of these is conducive to meaningful, productive dialogue.