Yes, facts can change minds. While you cannot change someone else’s worldview or identity in a debate, you can persuade a specific belief.
Here’s what scientific studies have shown.
Corrections done right make people more accurate, and no one wants to be wrong. So the realistic goal is not instant conversion. It is helping one idea become a little more aligned with reality.
When correcting someone, lead with what is true. Keep it simple. Give the evidence and, when needed, explain what actually happened rather than merely saying the original claim is false. Research on misinformation recommends the following:
emphasize anything accurate within the bad argument,
briefly identify the error,
explain why it is wrong,
and then explain the correct explanation.
Giving people a replacement explanation matters because simply removing a false idea can leave a hole that the old story continues to fill.
Also, do not turn the correction into a personal contest. One four-country experiment found that presenting fact-checks as confirmation of what is true, worked better than emphasizing the person is wrong. Other experiments show that simply encouraging people to focus on accuracy can improve their ability to distinguish true from false information. In other words, give the person room to reconsider without demanding that they admit defeat. Don’t overwhelm someone with twenty facts. Focus on correcting one or two at a time, not the person.
Unfortunately, misinformation can remain influential even after correction. Even if they agree in an exchange, their agreement often fades with time. That’s frustrating, but also demonstrates the actual level of influence you have over others.
Explain clearly and let the other person think. Your job is to present reality as clearly as you can. Their job is to decide what to do with it.
Ecker, Ullrich K. H., Stephan Lewandowsky, John Cook, Philipp Schmid, Lisa K. Fazio, Nadia Brashier, Panayiota Kendeou, Emily K. Vraga, and Michelle A. Amazeen. “The Psychological Drivers of Misinformation Belief and Its Resistance to Correction.” Nature Reviews Psychology 1, no. 1 (2022): 13–29. This major review examines why misinformation is believed, why it can continue influencing reasoning after correction, and which methods help people update their beliefs. It also reviews evidence showing that the feared “backfire effect” is much less common than once thought.
van der Linden, Sander. “Misinformation: Susceptibility, Spread, and Interventions to Immunize the Public.” Nature Medicine 28 (2022): 460–467. This review provides especially useful practical guidance for correcting misinformation: lead with the truth, keep the correction clear, explain why the false claim is wrong, avoid unnecessary repetition of the myth, and provide a coherent alternative explanation.
Chan, Man-pui Sally, Christopher R. Jones, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, and Dolores Albarracín. “Debunking: A Meta-Analysis of the Psychological Efficacy of Messages Countering Misinformation.” Psychological Science 28, no. 11 (2017): 1531–1546. This meta-analysis of 52 studies involving 6,878 participants found that debunking can substantially reduce belief in misinformation, although misinformation can retain some influence afterward. More detailed corrections generally produced stronger corrective effects.
Aruguete, Natalia, Flavia Batista, Ernesto Calvo, Matias Guizzo-Altube, Carlos Scartascini, and Tiago Ventura. “Framing Fact-Checks as a ‘Confirmation’ Increases Engagement with Corrections of Misinformation: A Four-Country Study.” Scientific Reports 14 (2024): 3201. Experiments in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Colombia found that presenting accurate information as confirmation of what is true produced greater engagement and fewer negative emotional reactions than presenting the same information primarily as a refutation of what was false.
Pennycook, Gordon, Ziv Epstein, Mohsen Mosleh, Antonio A. Arechar, Dean Eckles, and David G. Rand. “Shifting Attention to Accuracy Can Reduce Misinformation Online.” Nature 592 (2021): 590–595. Across survey experiments and a Twitter field experiment, simply prompting people to think about accuracy improved the quality of information they subsequently chose to share. The study supports shifting a discussion toward truth and accuracy rather than treating every disagreement as a contest to be won.
Living well includes living with honor. A good debate is not just about making the strongest argument. It is also about how you conduct yourself while making it. Listen fairly, acknowledge what is true, and never knowingly distort or invent facts to win. You may lose a point and still keep something more important: your honor. Your goal is to seek truth and retain the friendship of your adversary.
Michael Alan Prestwood Author & Natural Philosopher
Prestwood writes on science-first philosophy, with particular attention to the convergence of disciplines. Drawing on his TST Framework, his work emphasizes rational inquiry grounded in empirical observation while engaging questions at the edges of established knowledge. With TouchstoneTruth positioned as a living touchstone, this work aims to contribute reliable, evolving analysis in an emerging AI era where the credibility of information is increasingly contested.
