"Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"
Chico Marx in Duck Soup

It still amazes me that when you show somebody something, show them evidence they can see with their own eyes, they still willfully disbelieve it. You're not only lying, they insist, you're trying to trick them.

Even when you take them behind the scenes, as it were, and show them what's behind the curtain, they still insist there's some trickery.

And when they can't point to any trickery, they resort to name-calling. You're just a bad person, even if they can't point to why, so what you're saying must be patently false.

Recently, Rachel Maddow had Bill Nye ("The Science Guy") on her MSNBC show to help elucidate how a single snow storm does not negate or refute global climate science. (They didn't go into the actual science that describes how that phenomenon is exactly what's supposed to happen in most climate change models - enhanced precipitation, which in normally cold February comes down as snow.) While pointing out that we've had one of the warmest Januaries in 2,000 years, taking the opportunity of a snow storm to mock and belittle Al Gore and suggest the world's climate scientists are part of a mass - and yet secret - conspiracy is, in Nye's words, "unpatriotic."

"Oh no you di-in't!" says the neoconservative  agenda. Suggesting lack of patriotism is their sole purvey, reserved for anyone who questions the reasons for protracted, unpopular and unnecessary wars. Nye was saying that, since science has achieved so many great things for this country (he didn't say it, but bigger bombs is one of them), it was perhaps unpatriotic to question that very science that once made us great.

Some went so far as to suggest that Nye wasn't a "real" scientist himself. If he was so smart, why did he spend his time educating children (on his long-running PBS series) instead of making discoveries of his own? Yes, they said this. That he "had to resort to ad hominem attacks" immediately diminishes his arguments, they say, and therefore his claims are invalid.

Some, like Glenn Beck, went so far on the defensive as to claim they've never, ever, said anything disputing any climate change science. So Bill Nye was unjustified in his "attack."

Yes, you read that right. Glenn Beck insisted he's never, not once, disputed climate change science. Certainly not several times just during the most recent snow storm.

And when Rachel Maddow called him out on his hypocrisy, showing clips of his show where he did, Beck went on the offensive, accusing Maddow's show of editing out key pieces of his show. 

Here's the funny part (or the part that would be funny if it weren't so sad) - while showing clips of Rachel's show (pay close attention now) HE EDITS OUT THE PART OF HER SHOW WHERE SHE PLAYS THE CLIP HE CLAIMS SHE EDITED OUT. He made it obvious, too. Not just a jump-cut, but a swipe transition. He's all, "she cut out the part where I said I didn't say that," but then cuts out the part where she in fact plays that part.

Now this is where I become dumbfounded. Back on Rachel's show, when she tells him, rightly, to "Back off," for calling her a liar, where she plays the full tape of her show, Beck's clip intact (where he claimed to never have denied climate change), then goes on to play a half dozen others where he's in fact said just that, in the face of video evidence that Glenn Beck has edited content to tell lies, pig-headed morons still insist Maddow is deceitful and a liar. 

Go read through a bit of the comments on any discussion of that segment and watch how so many quickly proclaim, "this proves nothing." 

That she's openly lesbian entitles them to call her names (e.g. "dildo diva") and question her integrity as a journalist. Never mind that she has a PhD in political science (ah, yes, the "science" thing again) and Beck and Limbaugh never finished school, she's the one spouting propaganda and hatred to incite division.

Maybe we've seen too many magic tricks.  Maybe we're accustomed to seeing illusions and knowing there's some trick involved, despite what we see.

When David Copperfield makes the Statue of Liberty disappear, sure, it looks impressive, and large chunks of the populous are left scratching their heads. The trick is perfectly simple—while "covered," the stage and camera are moved 30 feet to the left. When "revealed," the statue isn't in the camera's line of sight any more. "*Gasp*! It's gone!"

(Doug Henning, not David Copperfield)

 Perhaps we've just become accustomed to simple camera tricks—Photoshop modifications to people's faces—that we take nothing at, well, face value. Nothing that doesn't affirm our beliefs, that is. 

(Doug Henning image taken from  http://meathaus.com/2008/01/18/doug-henning-magical-image-collection/, from  http://compumagic.com/magic/dh/Collage.html; checker shadow illusion from  http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html  ©1995,  Edward H. Adelson, under fair use license with attribution.)