If you are a nerd, there is scarcely a difference between a moral truth and a logical one. If something is right, it's logically consistent, hopefully based on empirical data and in the service of creating some kind of order. If something is wrong, it's because it is conceptually broken.

Of course, the persuasive effect of the most carefully-prepared, exhaustively-researched and gingerly-worded logical argument to somebody who doesn't understand the data or the method of interpreting them is precisely nil, if it isn't negative. Winning arguments by way of information disparity only works if you are already in power—or if you are in the exclusive company of technocrats. I suspect, however, that we are witnessing the beginning of the end of technocracy.

What I mean is increasingly we find people in positions of immense skill with next to no political power, and vice versa. If we aren't in a position to beat people over the head with our expertise, we must educate them if we want our logic implemented. Of course, this entails a willing pupil, so we are back to square one.

If Only You Knew What I Knew You Would Agree

To educate a person is to cost them in the very least their time. Again, absent force, we get people to volunteer their time by showing them immediately perceptible value.

By that I mean what reduces ultimately to a moral value—setting right some misfit perceptible to the listener, whether it's social justice or the state of their pocketbook. But facts are amoral. So is skill and its formalized counterpart, technology. A desire to increase efficiency doesn't communicate any intrinsic value, neither does acquiring new effectiveness—not without tying it back to some sort of context.

Consider that your conclusion is one that you arrived at in no small part due to private contemplation, using expertise few if any others have access to. This is not merely in the context of formally-recognized disciplines but that everybody is an expert in their own experience. If other people can't see how you got to your conclusion, how can they value it?

Well, it was clearly worth it to you to get so good at what you do to get into such a predicament, so what was it? Why did you spend so much time on it; what ailment were you trying to cure? Perhaps if we started with our intent more often, our appeals would gain more traction. While the logic of our arguments is important for their implementations to work, we may find it of decreasing importance for earning support to carry those implementations out.