Gil

Why have they been hiding where millions of US tax dollars go?!

If you’ve heard someone ask this question (perhaps spurred on by a social media post or thirty by prominent members of the ruling party) in spite of the fact that all allocations and payments are publicly tracked in broad daylight, down to the dollar, and have been for years (including under POTUS’s first term) – you might be listening to a casualty of epistemic warfare.

(Man I just love that term.)

What’s going on here, ChatGPT?

“The Rhetoric of the Unanswerable Question: How Manufactured Ignorance Sustains Authoritarian Movements”

A distinct feature of authoritarian rhetoric is its ability to transform the availability of information into proof of a conspiracy. Questions are asked not to seek answers, but to affirm the belief that answers do not exist. The moment a response is provided—whether from government agencies, independent watchdogs, or subject-matter experts—it is reframed as either an evasion or further evidence of deception. The cycle repeats indefinitely: a question is posed, an answer is dismissed, and the continued existence of the question becomes proof of an unsolvable mystery.

This technique is not merely a byproduct of bad faith debate; it is an intentional strategy. Authoritarian movements thrive not on genuine uncertainty, but on the performance of uncertainty. For those who seek control through populist discontent, knowledge is not a resource to be accessed but an obstacle to be overcome. The very act of acquiring expertise, of studying history, economics, or governance, is treated as evidence of corruption. The “common sense” of the movement’s adherents is exalted above the documented record, and those who present facts are framed as part of an elite conspiracy.

In this dynamic, the function of the question is not to uncover truth but to delegitimize the mechanisms through which truth is discovered. The government publishes financial reports? That proves the numbers are manipulated. NGOs track expenditures? That proves they are in on the deception. Researchers write extensive analyses? That proves they are too invested in hiding the real story.

Authoritarianism does not need to control all sources of information; it only needs to convince its followers that all sources of information are unreliable. The more evidence is produced, the more it is cast as proof of a cover-up. This is not skepticism—it is a form of epistemic warfare, in which the very existence of knowledge becomes a threat. It is the rhetorical equivalent of burning the library so that no one may learn what was inside.

This strategy has historical precedent. Fascist movements of the 20th century did not rely on the absence of information but on a carefully cultivated disdain for it. The truth was not erased; it was drowned in a sea of contradictions and rebranded as deception. Those who insisted on facts were mocked as out-of-touch intellectuals, and the public was conditioned to view complexity itself as an enemy. In this climate, the ruling party’s failures could not be meaningfully debated because debate required a shared understanding of reality—a condition authoritarianism cannot allow to exist.

The consequences of this approach are as dangerous as they are predictable. Once a society embraces the idea that no answer is real, it loses the ability to challenge those who govern it. Any corruption, any failure, any misallocation of resources becomes impossible to prove, because proof itself is always suspect. The people are left in a state of perpetual dissatisfaction, searching for answers they refuse to accept, convinced that their inability to find the truth is the fault of an enemy who has hidden it from them. In this way, authoritarian movements ensure their longevity: by keeping their followers locked in an endless search for an answer they have already decided cannot exist.

Democracies don’t fail overnight, the descent into oligarchy and dictatorship is preceded and sustained by a whole lot of rhetorical BullSht.

The bullsht has a purpose: to generate cognitive dissonance in party loyalists (“epistemic destabilization”) and to resolve that dissonance in the direction of enhanced loyalty and submission to the party’s leader.

Truth doesn’t matter, coherence doesn’t matter, repeating what the powerful say is all that matters.

That said, let’s take a look at some of the popular doublethink nowadays…

😬

(Some of) The Contradictions of Contemporary Political Discourse

Political discourse in the United States has grown increasingly paradoxical, with many positions reflecting internal contradictions. These contradictions often emerge from the need to sustain ideological cohesion, even at the expense of logical consistency. The following essay examines a set of commonly asserted yet contradictory claims, exploring the implications of these inconsistencies and their broader impact on public debate.

1. “The Left is Controlling the Weather, but Humans Cannot Impact Climate Change”

This paradoxical claim suggests that the political left has developed the capacity to manipulate weather patterns while simultaneously dismissing the well-documented human impact on climate change. The contradiction lies in the acceptance of large-scale human influence over natural phenomena in one instance while rejecting it in another. This inconsistency may stem from the ideological rejection of climate science, which is often viewed as a tool for increased governmental control. However, attributing weather manipulation to political opponents while denying the cumulative effects of industrialization on the global climate undermines any coherent stance on environmental policy.

2. “January 6 Was a False Flag by Antifa and BLM,” but the President of the United States Just Pardoned All of Them

The events of January 6, 2021, have been subject to intense debate, with some asserting that leftist groups orchestrated the attack on the Capitol as a false flag operation. Simultaneously, there is praise for the President of the United States for granting pardons to individuals involved. This contradiction implies that those receiving clemency were not, in fact, political adversaries but rather aligned with the ruling party. The underlying issue here is a shifting narrative—when the individuals in question are perceived as politically useful, they are defended, but when their actions are inconvenient, blame is redirected elsewhere. This fluid redefinition of responsibility erodes accountability and weakens the integrity of political argumentation.

3. “The President of the United States Won by a Landslide, but the Election Was Rigged”

This claim asserts both an overwhelming victory for the President of the United States and a fraudulent election process. If the election was decisively won, there would be no need to contest its legitimacy; conversely, if the election was stolen, it would imply a loss rather than a landslide victory. The coexistence of these two assertions reflects a strategic effort to maintain political legitimacy while fueling grievances over the electoral process. The contradiction serves to mobilize supporters by portraying the President of the United States as both victorious and victimized, sustaining a sense of injustice that justifies continued political agitation.

4. “The President of the United States Deserves Credit for the COVID Vaccine, but No One Should Take It”

Here, the contradiction lies in simultaneously celebrating the rapid development of the COVID-19 vaccine as a monumental achievement while discouraging its use. The President of the United States has been praised for the success of Operation Warp Speed, yet among certain circles, vaccine skepticism remains prevalent. This inconsistency reflects a broader distrust of scientific institutions, where advancements are only accepted when they align with ideological narratives. The reluctance to embrace the vaccine, despite its development being hailed as a triumph, underscores the challenges of reconciling political allegiance with public health realities.

5. “Obamacare is Communism, but I Want to Keep My ACA”

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), often referred to as Obamacare, has been criticized as a step toward socialism or communism. However, many who denounce the policy also rely on its benefits. This contradiction highlights the disconnect between political rhetoric and lived experience. The ACA has provided healthcare access to millions, including those who oppose it on ideological grounds. The reluctance to acknowledge its positive impact reflects a broader pattern in which policies are judged not by their effectiveness but by their association with political adversaries.

6. Pro-Life, but Pro-Death Penalty

A common stance among certain factions within the ruling party is opposition to abortion while supporting capital punishment. The contradiction arises from the selective application of the principle of preserving life. If life is inherently valuable and should be protected, then advocating for state-sanctioned executions appears inconsistent. The justification often lies in differentiating between innocent and guilty lives, yet this distinction does not fully resolve the moral inconsistency. The juxtaposition of these positions raises fundamental ethical questions about the nature of justice and the role of the state in determining life and death.

7. “China Should Be Blamed for COVID, but It’s Just the Common Cold”

Blaming China for the COVID-19 pandemic while simultaneously downplaying the severity of the virus creates a logical inconsistency. If the virus is no more dangerous than the common cold, then holding a foreign government responsible for its spread seems unnecessary. Conversely, if the pandemic had severe consequences, its impact must be acknowledged rather than dismissed. This contradiction reveals a pattern in which responsibility is assigned to external actors while minimizing domestic policy failures. The underlying strategy is to maintain an adversarial stance toward geopolitical rivals while avoiding acknowledgment of the pandemic’s seriousness, thereby justifying both complacency and hostility in different contexts.

Conclusion

Each of these contradictions reveals a broader trend in modern political rhetoric: the prioritization of ideological consistency over logical coherence. These paradoxes serve a strategic function, reinforcing group identity and sustaining political mobilization. However, such inconsistencies ultimately weaken public discourse, making it more difficult to engage in reasoned debate or implement effective policies. If political movements are to maintain credibility, they must confront these contradictions and strive for a more consistent, principled approach to governance.

I don’t think the Left and Right political wings currently pose the same threat to the stability and freedom of civil society in many countries, but I notice a certain overlap between many of those who are drawn to either wing, in certain key attitudes, behaviors, and modes they adopt.

To put it bluntly:

Ever wonder why both Left-wingers and Right-wingers are often super self-righteous knowitalls who are convinced those who disagree with their claims are not just wrong but evil, stupid, and ugly?

Tell us what’s going on here, ChatGPT…

“Epistemic Arrogance in Ethics, Science, and Other Domains: A Study of the Political Left and Right”

Introduction: Defining Epistemic Arrogance

Epistemic arrogance—the overestimation of one’s knowledge or intellectual authority—has profound consequences in ethics, science, and political discourse. It manifests as an uncritical confidence in one’s own beliefs, often accompanied by the dismissal of alternative perspectives. This intellectual hubris is particularly visible in political ideologies, where both the left and right exhibit forms of epistemic arrogance that shape public discourse, policy-making, and social cohesion. Whether in moral debates, scientific inquiry, or political decision-making, epistemic arrogance leads to polarization, misinformation, and the suppression of open dialogue. This essay explores how epistemic arrogance operates in ethics and science and how it manifests on both sides of the political spectrum, ultimately arguing that intellectual humility is essential for a more constructive and reasoned public discourse.

Epistemic Arrogance in Ethics

Moral Certainty and Dogmatism

Ethical debates often involve deeply held convictions, making them particularly susceptible to epistemic arrogance. Those who believe they have moral clarity frequently dismiss dissenting views as not only incorrect but immoral. This can be seen in contentious social issues such as abortion, free speech, and economic justice. For example, in the abortion debate, some pro-choice advocates frame opposition as inherently misogynistic, while some pro-life advocates dismiss pro-choice arguments as outright moral degeneracy. Both sides claim a monopoly on moral truth, making dialogue nearly impossible.

The Role of Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias—the tendency to seek out and interpret information in a way that confirms existing beliefs—fuels epistemic arrogance. Ethical debates are often conducted in echo chambers, where individuals are exposed primarily to arguments that reinforce their preexisting views. This phenomenon is evident in the realm of social justice activism, where discussions about systemic racism, LGBTQ+ rights, and economic inequality are often presented in absolutist terms. While these causes are undoubtedly important, many activists dismiss counterarguments as inherently reactionary or ignorant, rather than engaging with the possibility that alternative ethical frameworks might provide valuable insights.

Moral Grandstanding and Virtue Signaling

Public declarations of moral conviction often serve a social function beyond the pursuit of truth. In what philosopher Justin Tosi calls “moral grandstanding,” individuals make exaggerated moral claims to demonstrate their virtue rather than to engage in reasoned debate. This is common in online activism, where individuals and organizations frequently issue statements of unwavering moral certainty on complex issues. For instance, in discussions about climate change, some left-leaning environmental activists dismiss economic concerns about green policies as greed-driven, while some right-leaning opponents of environmental regulation dismiss climate activism as a cover for authoritarian control. Both sides often engage in virtue signaling rather than substantive discussion.

Epistemic Arrogance in Science

The Appeal to Scientific Consensus

Science is often invoked as an authoritative arbiter of truth, but epistemic arrogance can lead to the misuse of scientific consensus. While scientific consensus is valuable, history has shown that it is not infallible. The 20th-century rejection of Alfred Wegener’s continental drift theory, the widespread belief in eugenics in the early 1900s, and the replication crisis in psychology all demonstrate that science progresses by questioning, not by dogma. However, some political movements use the concept of “settled science” as a rhetorical weapon to shut down debate rather than to foster understanding. This is particularly evident in discussions about climate change and public health, where some activists claim that “the science is settled” while dismissing legitimate concerns about policy trade-offs.

Cherry-Picking and the Dismissal of Evidence

Both political camps selectively embrace or reject scientific findings based on ideological convenience. For instance, left-leaning movements readily accept climate science but often reject findings on sex-based biological differences when they challenge gender ideology. Conversely, right-leaning movements emphasize biological differences in sex and intelligence while dismissing climate change and vaccine safety research. The COVID-19 pandemic provided a striking example of this phenomenon: while the left generally deferred to scientific authorities advocating for lockdowns and mandates, the right was more likely to emphasize studies highlighting potential economic and psychological harms. Both sides often engaged in selective interpretation rather than a balanced assessment of the evidence.

Public Perception vs. the Scientific Method

Epistemic arrogance arises when non-experts present themselves as authorities while disregarding scientific complexity. In political debates, laypeople often assert scientific claims with unwarranted confidence, a phenomenon amplified by social media. The popularity of figures like Neil deGrasse Tyson on the left and Jordan Peterson on the right illustrates how science can be simplified into ideological talking points rather than understood as a nuanced process of inquiry. For example, Tyson’s confident proclamations about atheism and the meaning of life often ignore philosophical depth, while Peterson’s discussions of evolutionary psychology sometimes stretch beyond empirical support.

Political Ideology and Epistemic Arrogance

The Left’s Epistemic Arrogance

Scientism and Technocracy: The left often embraces a form of scientism—treating science not as a method but as an unquestionable authority. This is seen in policies that assume expert solutions can solve complex social problems, such as centralized economic planning or sweeping environmental regulations without consideration for unintended consequences.

Moral Absolutism in Social Justice: Many progressive movements treat their ethical positions as beyond debate. Dissent on topics like racial justice or gender identity is frequently framed not as intellectual disagreement but as evidence of bigotry, shutting down discussion.

Overconfidence in Institutional Knowledge: The left tends to trust academia and the media more than the right, sometimes to the point of disregarding alternative viewpoints as misinformation or conspiracy theories.

The Right’s Epistemic Arrogance

Skepticism of Academic and Scientific Institutions: The right often expresses distrust toward experts, leading to the rejection of well-supported scientific findings. This is visible in climate change skepticism, vaccine hesitancy, and the rejection of evolutionary theory by religious conservatives.

Appeals to Traditional Knowledge: Right-wing epistemic arrogance often takes the form of a belief that historical wisdom is superior to modern empirical research. This is evident in economic libertarianism, where some argue that free markets always work best based on historical precedent rather than contemporary economic analysis.

Resistance to Social Change: Many conservatives argue against progressive policies on the basis of tradition rather than empirical scrutiny, assuming that past social structures were inherently superior without critically evaluating their flaws.

The Consequences of Epistemic Arrogance

Polarization and Breakdown of Dialogue

When individuals believe they hold absolute truth, they struggle to engage constructively with opposing views. This has led to increasing political polarization, where each side views the other not just as mistaken but as dangerous. The rise of cancel culture on the left and conspiracy-driven populism on the right exemplify how epistemic arrogance fuels societal division.

Policy Failures

Overconfidence in ideological positions often leads to policies that fail to account for real-world complexities. For example, the war on drugs was largely driven by conservative moral absolutism, ignoring evidence that punitive measures increase crime and incarceration rates. On the left, overzealous economic redistribution policies have sometimes led to unintended economic stagnation and capital flight.

Erosion of Trust in Institutions

When institutions—whether academic, governmental, or media—display epistemic arrogance, public trust declines. This is particularly evident in the declining credibility of mainstream media, where both sides of the political spectrum believe the press is biased against them.

Mitigating Epistemic Arrogance

To counter epistemic arrogance, we must foster intellectual humility—the recognition of our own cognitive limitations and the openness to revision. Epistemic pluralism, valuing diverse perspectives and interdisciplinary approaches, can prevent ideological entrenchment. Finally, Socratic inquiry—a commitment to questioning assumptions—can help individuals and institutions prioritize truth-seeking over ideological conformity.

Conclusion

Epistemic arrogance afflicts both the left and the right, manifesting in ethics, science, and political ideology. Whether through moral dogmatism, scientific overreach, or institutional distrust, overconfidence in one’s intellectual authority leads to polarization and poor decision-making. A culture of intellectual humility and open inquiry is essential to navigating complex social and scientific issues responsibly.