Atkinson's Article 60
Background
When I turned sixty, I became acutely conscious of a rather obvious fact: I was considerably closer to the finish line than the starting blocks. Time had become too precious to squander.
For years I had engaged in arguments, particularly online, with people making claims that were demonstrably false. I would ask for evidence, provide reputable sources, point to scientific studies and attempt to reason through the issue. The vaccine-and-autism claim was a typical example. No matter how much sound evidence was presented, there were occasions when it became clear that the person on the other side had no genuine intention of considering it.
I realised there is an important difference between being wrong and refusing to consider the possibility that you might be wrong.
The former is part of ordinary human conversation. The latter can make meaningful conversation impossible.
On November 4, 2013, I gave myself permission to stop wasting what remained of my life on the latter.
I called it Article 60.
Atkinson's Article 60
November 4, 2013
Victoria, British Columbia
Atkinson’s Article 60
Atkinson’s Article 60 is the principle that a person has no obligation to continue a discussion once it has become apparent that another participant is deliberately refusing to engage with evidence, reason, or the possibility that their existing belief may be wrong.
It is not invoked merely because two people disagree, nor because one person’s argument is weak, mistaken or poorly expressed. Honest disagreement, uncertainty, ignorance and even stubbornness remain grounds for conversation.
Article 60 applies when something more malignant has become apparent: evidence is rejected without examination; reliable sources are dismissed simply because they contradict the desired conclusion; disproven claims are knowingly repeated; standards of proof are continually changed to prevent contrary evidence from being accepted; or questions are asked not in pursuit of an answer but merely to prolong an argument whose conclusion has already been predetermined.
The principle was formulated by Philip Atkinson on November 4, 2013, following his realisation at the age of sixty that the remaining portion of a human life is too valuable to spend indefinitely attempting to reason with someone who has made a deliberate decision not to be reasoned with.
Invocation of Atkinson’s Article 60 claims neither victory nor the final word.
It simply means:
I have concluded that this conversation is no longer being conducted in good faith, and I decline to spend any more of my finite time upon it.
Invocation
Atkinson’s Article 60 invoked.