Someone who has repeatedly been convinced by arguments that turned out to be wrong may rationally stop updating on arguments they cannot refute.
Alexander's case is a reader persuaded in turn by a book and its rebuttal, who concludes that being unable to counter an argument is weak evidence about the argument. Since persuasive skill is distributed independently of truth, the non-expert's best policy may be to hold position against compelling reasoning, which is epistemically uncomfortable and often correct.
In practice
- A juror who cannot fault either expert and declines to be moved by the more fluent one is behaving sensibly.
- A manager who has been talked into four failed initiatives is right to distrust the fifth pitch on its persuasiveness.