Right! we can come up with such thought experiments, for any number of more consequential social issues — vaccine advocacy vs. anti-vaxxers, pro-choice vs. pro-life — to the point that our debates on religion vs. atheism will seem tame and harmless in comparison.
Now let me just play devil’s advocate for a second. If these experiments merely show that formal logic constructs can expose cognitive bias, then is it not misleading to conclude that they prove that Camp A & Camp B are equially logical? Is it not a form of apologetics to use such mental gymnastics to suggest that believers & non-believers, climate change adherents and skeptics, vaxxers and non-vaxxers — are equially logical?
