No, no, no. You're trying to triangulate to a corner of the world where your fundamental assertions are still unchallenged, but you can't get there. Here's the problem: Not in evidence, not tested for, not relevant to the discussion. The assumptions of the subjects is not under investigation, nor does it have any bearing on the outcome. The only question is whether the subjects want to hear the information or not - its veracity does not enter into the discussion. The experiment was published in August 1967. Cigarette packs had only had warnings on them since 1966 - even then, they were pretty ambivalent ("Caution: Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your Health"). In 1965, 42% of adults smoked. It's entirely possible that the experiment was conducted before even that mealy-mouthed warning made it onto packs. So you can't just invalidate the experiment by presuming the experimenter presumes the subjects are taking the recordings as gospel truth. It isn't part of the experiment, there's no basis to make the assumption, and the facts on the ground indicate that it's a silly assumption to make in the first place. The only thing being tested is openness to information based on the content of that information.The assumption of the experimenter is that test subjects should assume the tape-recorded messages are factual.
There are really only a few ways intelligent disagreements can go.
One way is well illustrated by my discussion with waxoxygen (see above). After the resolution of a number of points of contention, we discover that we are in general agreement. Neither of us won the argument. The fact that waxoxygen agreed with my position eventually but did not agree initially could as easily be attributed to my poor initial explanation of my position as it could to the force of my subsequent arguments. I do not consider the discussion a waste of time (far from it!) because it gave us both the opportunity to examine and justify our views. My disagreement with you has also given us similar intellectual opportunities, but it is obvious that we are not going to arrive at an agreement. The discussion has now degenerated into a series of restatements of our own particular positions. It is just the sort of thing you see in formal debates with a long series of rebuttals. The first few exchanges are interesting, but after that both parties repeat themselves in astonished frustration that the other simply refuses to see the obvious. I think we have arrived at that point. I believe this is where we stand: You believe the Jonah Lehrer argument is both decisive and comprehensive. I believe that it is substantially correct, but insufficient to provide a comprehensive explanation for disagreement. I have reached the point where I am beginning to quietly speculate about your underlying assumptions and motivations – and I know all too well that that is not a good, fair, or reasonable place to be. You appear irritated, which doesn’t bode well either. I think it’s fair to say we leave each other unconvinced. I do not think that proves that either of us is, in general, irrational. I thank you for the discussion, and genuinely hope to hear from you again.