Hi everyone I have a philosophical question. Maybe it’s a literature question. Maybe it’s impossible to answer.

In the public conversation, people trade stylized facts with each other. For example:

“we need more shelter for people who are homeless”
“it’s not just a housing problem we need drug treatment programs.”

These are both generally true points.

(incidentally, they are 2 sides of a debate even though they don’t seem to oppose each other. )

There are many talking points that are pretty much true, that highlight different aspects of a situation, or different people’s experience of a policy. more examples:
“Prop 13 is bad for CA state finances”
“Prop 13 protects people from being priced out of their homes”

“Charter schools bleed resources from public schools”
“Charter schools provide choices to parents & kids”
“Farmers waste water”
“Farmers need water to grow food”

But there are also taking points that are explicitly and obviously not true or that fly in the face of ordinary experience. For example,

“There’s no point in building this housing development, it’s only X number of houses and the housing deficit is X million houses”

Or, “coronoavirus is worse in dense areas”.

My question is - is there a limit to plausibility for public statements like this? What is it?

The reason I am asking this is that the idea that coronavirus proves density is bad is apparently becoming ubiquitous in the LA area but has not caught on here in SF.

The difference, I think, is that a major talking point for SF NIMBYs is that SF is already one of the densest US cities. They have been chanting this true statement in unison for years.

And, SF is doing great fighting coronavirus.

So it seems that they can’t bring themselves to claim that “density is bad because density makes it impossible to fight coronavirus”. It’s just too obviously contradictory.

This makes me think there is a psychological limit on motivated reasoning.

Is there any theorizing out there on what those limits are?

Thanks