There are few people in the world who can actually extrapolate data correctly. They get to an explanation that makes enough sense to them, and then refuse to budge from that status quo. Generally, just like in your mom's example, they have to personally experience it for themselves in order for their mind to be changed. And even then, there are those who will deny evidence seen for themselves.
As an example, I know someone who is convinced that A) chickens have a vagina, B) a rooster must be present for a hen to lay eggs, and C) that the yolk is the part of the egg that becomes the chick.
In spite of having taken her out to a coop consisting only of hens and letting her collect eggs, she is still convinced that it must be a case of a neighbor's rooster wandering around. In spite of her actually watching a hen lay an egg and having butchered a chicken while she was there and actually opening it up to show her the parts, she still insists that chickens have a vagina and she just doesn't know enough about chicken anatomy to have been able to point it out. In spite of breaking a fertile and an unfertile egg in the same pan to show her the difference and having opened an egg with a partially developed embryo inside, she still insists that it's the yolk that develops and that there must have been something wrong with that embryo I showed her and that's why it died. At which point, I gave up, it wasn't worth putting an egg in the incubator just to crack it halfway through and show her when she'd just have some sort of other excuse.
To her, it was 'common sense', all the things she believed. Of course chickens must have a vagina, she does, and that's where babies come from. Of course a rooster was necessary for eggs, after all, for her to give birth to anything she needed sperm from a male of the species. And of course the yolk grew into the chick, after all, when sperm reaches the center of a human egg that's the part that develops into a baby, so since the yolk is the center of an egg it must be the part that develops into a baby. It makes sense to her, and was on some level logically worked out, so she insisted it must be true and could not have her mind changed.
Many people are the same way, including those who often consider themselves critical thinkers. It's 'logical', it's 'rational', and it makes 'sense', therefore it must be true. They never stop to consider that it was only their presuppositions and misunderstandings that led them to those 'logical, rational, sensible' conclusions, and thus they will ignore everything that disproves them because now it's more than them just having 'misinformation'. Now when you challenge them, you aren't saying they are misinformed, dangnabbit, now you are saying they are WRONG.
Sadly, to often it takes a level of trauma to cause the paradigm shift. In this case, it was your mom's desperation to have the skunk smell gone. Very few people actually are willing to test themselves in such a manner. And even those who do like to test themselves and learn new things will have their sacred cows they cling to even after having been rammed face first into the truth. They'll continue to state 'well it's just common sense' and 'well that's the way it is', years after the fact. Take my great grandfather, for example. In spite of having had his life literally saved by having open-heart surgery done by a black doctor, he still insists that 'coloured folks' aren't intelligent enough to actually become doctors. Now his excuse is 'well that doctor musta had some white blood in him'. And he can't figure out why his black daughter in law won't let him spend time with her children.
All that said, I have been able to get through to some folks. Most recently was my own mother, who has some very clear gender biases. She was talking recently about how all homosexual males are weak, effeminate, soft, so on, so forth. I casually mentioned an old friend of mine that she had known for several years and liked a lot. I brought up the fact that he had just gotten married. My mother asked what his wife's name was. Truthfully, I replied 'Thomas'. She stopped short, thought a minute to things she'd said where my friend could overhear, sighed and said 'I'm an idiot, I owe him some apologies don't I?'
As an example, I know someone who is convinced that A) chickens have a vagina, B) a rooster must be present for a hen to lay eggs, and C) that the yolk is the part of the egg that becomes the chick.
In spite of having taken her out to a coop consisting only of hens and letting her collect eggs, she is still convinced that it must be a case of a neighbor's rooster wandering around. In spite of her actually watching a hen lay an egg and having butchered a chicken while she was there and actually opening it up to show her the parts, she still insists that chickens have a vagina and she just doesn't know enough about chicken anatomy to have been able to point it out. In spite of breaking a fertile and an unfertile egg in the same pan to show her the difference and having opened an egg with a partially developed embryo inside, she still insists that it's the yolk that develops and that there must have been something wrong with that embryo I showed her and that's why it died. At which point, I gave up, it wasn't worth putting an egg in the incubator just to crack it halfway through and show her when she'd just have some sort of other excuse.
To her, it was 'common sense', all the things she believed. Of course chickens must have a vagina, she does, and that's where babies come from. Of course a rooster was necessary for eggs, after all, for her to give birth to anything she needed sperm from a male of the species. And of course the yolk grew into the chick, after all, when sperm reaches the center of a human egg that's the part that develops into a baby, so since the yolk is the center of an egg it must be the part that develops into a baby. It makes sense to her, and was on some level logically worked out, so she insisted it must be true and could not have her mind changed.
Many people are the same way, including those who often consider themselves critical thinkers. It's 'logical', it's 'rational', and it makes 'sense', therefore it must be true. They never stop to consider that it was only their presuppositions and misunderstandings that led them to those 'logical, rational, sensible' conclusions, and thus they will ignore everything that disproves them because now it's more than them just having 'misinformation'. Now when you challenge them, you aren't saying they are misinformed, dangnabbit, now you are saying they are WRONG.
Sadly, to often it takes a level of trauma to cause the paradigm shift. In this case, it was your mom's desperation to have the skunk smell gone. Very few people actually are willing to test themselves in such a manner. And even those who do like to test themselves and learn new things will have their sacred cows they cling to even after having been rammed face first into the truth. They'll continue to state 'well it's just common sense' and 'well that's the way it is', years after the fact. Take my great grandfather, for example. In spite of having had his life literally saved by having open-heart surgery done by a black doctor, he still insists that 'coloured folks' aren't intelligent enough to actually become doctors. Now his excuse is 'well that doctor musta had some white blood in him'. And he can't figure out why his black daughter in law won't let him spend time with her children.
All that said, I have been able to get through to some folks. Most recently was my own mother, who has some very clear gender biases. She was talking recently about how all homosexual males are weak, effeminate, soft, so on, so forth. I casually mentioned an old friend of mine that she had known for several years and liked a lot. I brought up the fact that he had just gotten married. My mother asked what his wife's name was. Truthfully, I replied 'Thomas'. She stopped short, thought a minute to things she'd said where my friend could overhear, sighed and said 'I'm an idiot, I owe him some apologies don't I?'
