If the idea isn't based on fact, you can't use it in an argument if you want the other side to believe you. Making up facts doesn't make them true. That's the whole point. You can give anecdotes, sure, and enough anecdotes makes for a likely story, but unless you or someone else puts in the work to test that story, it's still just a story.
I'm not saying you should make up lies. If you want to tell somebody that persistance is important, you can say "constant dripping wears away the stone", and they will understand the metaphor. It doesn't matter that this is not true for every stone or that you haven't done the experiment yourself.
Stories are nearly equal in convincing someone to believe you. Just look at US Politics right now to see that we live in a post-truth society that strongly values narrative.
so... you made my point for me? "Stories are convincing even if they're entirely baseless"? They convince those who don't care about whether something is true, and so... we should roll with that?
How is that an acceptable attitude?
No, stories are stories, they're the thing snake oil sellers sell the masses in order to sell their snake oil: put them to the test. If their story is a good story: write it down and then go "cool, so what whether this actually has any merit, or truth?".
This isn't Orwell's 1984, just because people like something doesn't mean it's even remotely trustworthy. Let alone pandering to.
