I came across this post LLana Redstone titled the Fallacy of Equal Knowledge. The author, an academic who teaches sociology courses, suggests that many programs assume that by addressing issues with more accurate factual information undesirable behaviors should change. Sometimes, she argues these programs are doomed to failure. She notes that sometimes even an approach with strong information can generate more resistance rather than acceptance.
I guess I have come to the same conclusion, but find this very pessimistic and disheartening. The author suggests that differences in knowledge can contribute to some positions, but so can differences in values. I agree, but I have long felt that values have to be divided into what I would probably describe as consequential and inconsequential values. Differences of opinion (values as contrasted with fact) from a personal perspective are sometimes acceptable and sometimes not. Religious affiliation is an opinion that I can ignore. However, opinions on equity and even something like a COVID vaccination requirement are not negotiable. I think I see opinions held that impact only the self those I can accept even when I hold a different opinion, but not opinions held that produce consequences that diminish or endanger others. The COVID vaccination issue makes a good example. Some see this as a personal right of choice. I agree, but factually, it is also an issue that has an impact on others.