Re: "As for the believer's ability to convince the skeptic. I'm not sure a skeptic can ever really be convinced if they don't wish to be."
I'm going to assume by "skeptic" you mean someone who has strong reservations concerning faith-based beliefs, particularly those regarding claims of the supernatural -- people who subscribe to objectivity.
I'm also going to assume that by "believer" you mean someone who readily accepts at least some faith-based beliefs, particularly in regard to claims of the supernatural or paranormal -- people who subscribe to subjectivity.
Assuming I'm correct in the above, I think it's appropriate to review a bit of history. Let's look to the discoveries and beliefs of Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Magellan, Bruno and several others and see what it tells us about the ability of those who appeal to objective means to change their views and compare that to the same ability of those who subscribe to subjectivity.
Galileo was a Christian and therefore, likely believed in the doctrines as defined by the church of his day. That included the belief that the sun orbited the Earth. But after reviewing the work of Aristarchus and Copernicus, he became convinced of what the evidence had to say. He did his own research, built upon that of those before him and eventually, changed his belief. Those in the church, despite being provided with the same evidence, refused even to be open to the proposition that perhaps the solar system was not geocentric. So we see a change of belief in one who subscribed to objectivity and the refusal to even consider the possibility by those who subscribed instead to subjectivity.
Chalk one up for those who subscribe to the objective.
Bruno was an Italian Christian Monk and despite the subjective teachings of the church, realized that the evidence suggested a very strong likelihood that other planets would eventually be found to exist around other stars. So he deviated from the subjective teachings with which he'd been indoctrinated and changed his beliefs due to the strength of the evidence.
Chalk up another one for those who subscribe to objectivity.
Darwin was another faithful Christian but after taking a trip at the age of 22 and seeing very similar traits in different species, he became convinced that the evidence should not be ignored. So he changed his beliefs to fit the evidence, yet remained a Christian and continued to believe the Christian doctrine concerning the origin of species.
Chalk up another one for those who subscribe in objectivity.
We could certainly walk through the history of discovery, point-by-point and what we would most often see is a shift of belief by those who subscribe to objectivity and a vast rigidity of belief for those who subscribe instead to subjectivity.
Subjective beliefs are based primarily on what one chooses to believe. If someone chooses to believe in the existence of ghosts, there is no objective evidence to support the belief, and therefore, we can be certain they did not follow objective evidence to the adoption of their belief. Utilizing subjectivity leaves one without any cause to ever change their beliefs no matter how strong the collection of objective evidence because they are not choosing beliefs on the basis of objectivity or evidence.
Things are far different for those subscribing to objectivity. When the objective analysis leans strongly to either direction, one must either adopt the new direction as the most probable, or abandon objectivity. This places them back on the subjective side where they're free to ignore objective evidence and simply believe what they wish to believe.
So it's quite obvious that those least likely to change their position/beliefs regarding any proclaimed assertion are those on the subjective side, not those on the objective side. Science is called upon to alter its findings with notable frequency. In just the last 400-years, science has come from a stationary unchanging universe to one which is expanding. It has come from a universe which is expanding at a slowing rate to one which is expanding at an accelerating rate. Science has moved from gravity as a force to gravity as a consequence of warping space-time. Science has changed position from the assumption of a great flood to an evidenced finding that the Earth has never seen a global flood. Science has changed from the assumed absence of black holes (even by Einstein whose calculations predicted them), to the acceptance of black holes as a reality. Science has shifted from the idea that a black hole, once formed, just exist forever, to the idea that they can slowly evaporate into non-existence via the emission of Hawking-Radiation. Science has shifted from seeing very little credibility for the idea of Big Bang Theory to almost overwhelming acceptance.
This happens because we continually discover new objective evidence and that evidence often leads us in new directions. To subscribe to objectivity requires one to abandon old ideas when the evidence speaks strongly against them.
When one instead adheres to subjectivity, there is no reason for them to shift their beliefs to comply with new objective evidence because their beliefs were never evidence-based to begin with.
So clearly, it is not the objective belief which is unlikely to change. It is the subjective belief which is set rigidly and refuses to change regardless of evidence to the contrary, regardless of logic and regardless of reason. Subjective beliefs aren't based on any of those things. They're based only upon one's desire to believe, and thusly can remain firmly entrenched despite overwhelming demonstrations of the failures of those beliefs, simply because the subject wishes to retain such beliefs.
We don't find adherence to age-old beliefs which have been determined to be false among those who subscribe to objectivity. We find those things (flat-Earth, young-Earth, geocentrism, ghosts, gods, spirits, magic etc.), only among those who refuse to accept the worth of objectivity.
That being the case I think it's adequately demonstrated that the assertion that it's the skeptics who won't change, to be patently false. It's much the other way around. It is those who do not base their beliefs upon the evidence who refuse to change their beliefs. However, those who subscribe to objectivity are not going to change their beliefs until there is objective cause to do so. That doesn't make us stubborn or closed-minded, that simply makes us observant of the value of objectivity, and the futility of subjectivity.
Want to convince the objective observer, provide objective evidence. That's what we keep asking for and that's something the subjective believer simply can't provide because there seems to be no such evidence.
