This.
I’m a lawyer, and a litigator at that. We have in our statutes and case law things called “rebuttable presumptions” meaning things that are generally true in most cases, so the law presumes that is the case. An example that springs to mind and might be easy to grasp is the speed limit - if you drive at or under the speed limit there’s a rebuttable presumption you were driving safely. But if the conditions mean it would be dangerous to drive the speed limit you can be cited for unsafe driving and the police can testify about what facts led them to determine driving the speed limit was unsafe.
However, it’s rebuttable - so if you show how the facts of your specific case don’t align with the presumption, it not only can be rebutted (like the speed limit), it literally no longer has any legal weight. You can just argue “but I was going under the speed limit,” you’d have to prove that your speed in those conditions didn’t create an unsafe situation. The judge or jury has to look at the facts and make an informed decision given those facts, and can’t give any weight to the speed limit on the road.
I’m eating breakfast on my way to the courthouse this morning to go and do something similar - prove that my client’s bank accounts were inherited, and therefore rebutting the presumption that the funds in those accounts are community property. I have very little doubt the judge will look at the facts and stick with the presumption that all property owned by either spouse is community property, because the facts are so clear and the judge understands the application of the law on this point. Once I show the statements with “estate transfer” in them he will realize the community presumption doesn’t apply and look at the facts. If he messes up, I’ll appeal and I’m confident the court of appeals will get it right. Because that’s the way the legal system is supposed to work.
However in too much public discourse, there’s no such thing as a rebuttable presumption. A person makes a determination based on a belief (flawed or not), and that’s it. It’s either black or white, true or false, wrong or right. It doesn’t matter if you show them facts that their determination was wrong, or perhaps there is an exception to it. They get locked in and refuse to engage. And while that’s fine for some things that don’t impact society as a whole (OU sucks, no facts will change my mind about that), it’s horrible for many others that extend beyond your own personal sphere of influence (I’m scared of needles, so all vaccines must be terrible).
In other words, too many people aren’t willing to be persuaded that their position isn’t supported by the facts.
My dad used to tell me “your rights end where mine begin” when I was being a little shit to him about one thing or another and claimed it was my right as an American to say what I want or what have you; and while it’s pretty simplistic, it’s also not too far off from the golden rule (which I also happen to think is a pretty good one). But that sounds a lot like empathy, which is also in pretty short supply these days