

Street Epistemology. The reason it works better is because it avoids confronting the person with a conflicting viewpoint and setting their defenses up. Instead the interest of what and why they think something is true lets them try to justify it, and (sometimes) that digging by themselves leads to a reevaluation. Even if it doesn’t work the first time, it can plant a seed of doubt about their world view that they didn’t have before (because they didn’t think too much about the WHY).
If that route is taken and they’re okay with the lack of validation of their own thoughts, there is nothing you can say to them to break out of that. They’re fine with the lack of facts, so how can facts change anything? As the saying goes, “you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into”, however like I said, you can give them something that might cause a break over time if you help them start a crack. But only they can do that.
They definitely are other places as well to varying degrees. Some of it is just human nature and how our brains are wired to feed the ego when we believe we’re “right”, otherwise we wouldn’t have a history of constant disagreement, war, etc. over stupid stuff. The fundamentals of street epistemology is useful for any topic, from politics to religion to pseudosciences. It’s even helpful as self-validation, which will show how hard is can be to question your own beliefs, and maybe help understand how others can get caught up in thinking a certain way without actually thinking about it.