Those factual inconsistencies betray that it is just a value preference. Value arguments presented as factual arguments are the de facto mode of arguing. And this is wrong.
Exactly! The constant is the value preference ("I shouldn't have to sacrifice my way of life to solve global warming.") and they pick the "facts" to support their belief.
But even teaching someone to avoid motivated reasoning won't really change minds. It will make them argue better, but it won't change the underlying value preference.
If they stop lying to themselves and to the others, it will become clear that their position is just as good as anybody's, or that they are monsters, or that the subject is complex, or whatever; but in either way, it will move the argument in a productive direction.
Very often those people keep lying to themselves exactly because if they stopped they would discover they have some really bad values.
My point is that, for the kinds of values we're talking about, there is no objectively correct answer.
If you believe that it's better for people in the future to deal with global warming, that's not objectively right or wrong. There are no tests or proofs to validate. That's the thing about value preferences: they cannot be proven wrong because they are never wrong.
But I do agree with you that it's better to argue the root of the issue. If people could articulate what their actual beliefs/preferences are, then it would be easier to have a productive discussion.
Its just human nature to start from a position and investigate outwards looking for facts. It takes discipline and practice to avoid doing this ... unfortunately. And I doubt anyone really reaches that level of objectiveness, instead generally trusting their "intuition" even when they're a practiced scientist.
Ultimately that's why debate and varied opinions are important .. as long as we all meet on equal footing and good intent.
If tomorrow you found out that confessions under torture were mostly accurate, would that fact cause you to accept torture as a policing tool? Probably not.
The core insight of the Enlightenment--that we are all equal--is itself a statement of values rather than a factual observation. In truth, we are not equal.
But if we started with the fact that we are not equal and then tried to build a society out of that, we would end up with a pretty distopian and stratified civilization.
There are certainly things like "most humans value not torturing people" that are factual. Its quite exhausting to drag the lines between a strict definition of "physical law fact" and "known truths about humans" ad nauseam. People value their values, and that's a fact. Saying "we can't value facts as a primary source of judgement because we'll all turn into dispassionate torture robots" requires a suspension of disbelief.
Those factual inconsistencies betray that it is just a value preference. Value arguments presented as factual arguments are the de facto mode of arguing. And this is wrong.