I've put this up because I used it once to communicate my frustration with a friend who was a climate science denier. He later told me it had changed his attitude about looking into the evidence. I hope it might be useful to others in conversations with a good friend.
Imagine a dearly loved relative is mysteriously murdered. Though floundering in grief, you are still able to follow the investigation looking for the murderer. Eventually a suspect is identified and the case brought to trial.
You, of course, follow the trial avidly and though uncertain at first, the evidence piles up and you become sure they have got the culprit. Yet at the same time, as you watch the jury to see their responses to the evidence, you notice one juror who stands out. Unlike the others, he seems disinterested, he pays little attention to the presented evidence, sometimes he's even openly dismissive.
The case goes to the jury and after days of deliberation they report that they are unable to reach a verdict, hung 11 to 1 favoring a verdict of guilty. Afterwards you seek out the juror you'd noticed and, doing you best to contain your emotions, you ask him his thoughts.
"Oh, I just think there's still room for doubt," he says.
How would YOU feel?