The heat isn’t transmitted via photons, it’s transmitted via convection. The air acts as a medium to transmit the heat energy outward. The heating element itself emits photons because it gets hot enough where the atoms within vibrate at a frequency which reaches the visible spectrum of light. That’s why cooler elements glow red (lower frequency) and hotter elements glow blue (higher frequency). Most of the heat energy is not contained in the photons, you need an output on the level of the sun to achieve that. With regards to the sun, all of the energy is carried by radiation anyway, because convective currents can’t travel in the vacuum of space.

May I introduce you to exurb1a

Well yeah like I said, of course different people are gonna have different standards. A scientist will look at evidence very differently from a conspiracy nut, and reaching them requires vastly different approaches.

Fair enough. However, I was under the interpretation that evidence remains the same either way; it is the way it is presented that affects the likelihood of someone changing their mind. Presenting the evidence by itself may have a small chance at a positive effect, while including proper rhetoric lowers the negative and increases positive chance.

Therefore evidence should always be presented “correctly” to avoid setbacks, and the takeaways are thus functionally identical.

I mean I get your point, and I’m sure it’s more nuanced than this and depends on a whole host of other factors like whether it’s a politically charged topic (deoxygenated blood being blue vs HRT actually working), emotional state, connection to other core beliefs (like religious ones), etc. some or all of which are mentioned in the study.

Like I’m sure for topics that aren’t really important, just presenting the correct fact is enough to adjust most people’s view, unless they are particularly stubborn. Like saying “peeing on a jellyfish sting doesn’t really help actually” will usually be met with “oh, huh, I didn’t know that”. But even something as simple as saying “the earth isn’t flat” will make some people very angry. Start listing facts for a more complex topic like climate change, economics, or sociology and people will absolutely double down on whatever black-and-white viewpoint they already hold.

But yeah sure enough, they shouldn’t have used an absolute qualifier I guess.

I remember a study being referenced that claimed to show introducing facts contrary to a person’s existing viewpoint don’t get them to change, it just made them double-down and be more defensive.

To be fair, this is exactly what they said. Facts alone are not enough - you need rhetoric. So, not misinformation.

By “service” they probably mean something closer to “community service”: volunteering to help out your community and the people in need around you. Many people find it quite fulfilling.