Rights, autonomy, and what civil society owes its members.
Raids on bookshops like The Educational Bookstore have no place in a free country or a civilized democracy. Especially not when unilaterally conducted by law enforcers on their own judgement/agenda without a court order.
Selling books, even ones I don’t like, is not disorderly conduct. Promoting Palestinian nationalism, even if I disagree with it, is not a crime.
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.
I was concerned about the welfare of American Jewish communities when the level of antisemitism was holding at semi-random vandalism, physical assaults, and widespread bloodlibels about Israel. The people at the top occasionally repeated some of those bloodlibels, it’s true, but at least it was clear that they weren’t going to oversee the mass disenfranchisement of Jewish citizens anytime soon. That’s just not where the previous administration was holding at any point.
While it started with mass deportations of illegal migrants, it quickly grew to rescinding the legal status of immigrants, and now the POTUS and the party are talking about building concentration camps to hold tens of thousands of prisoners and the corporatists forcibly taking over the bureaucracy of the American government via its treasury and oversight departments are talking of deporting (sorry outsourcing) American citizens to foreign countries for internment. And it hasn’t even been two weeks.
But Jewish communities are safe, you say. They became white over the decades and were accepted by the tolerant folks who want to see competent white men in charge of everything. Their rights are safe in the emerging social order in the US of A. And on top of that, many Jewish Americans voted for POTUS and party! Surely POTUS and party would not turn their backs on them.
Oy. The same corporatists, by the way, who are now grabbing hold of the American government by its administrative b@ll$ with the full mandate of POTUS and party, have also been busy promoting white nationalist propaganda, sieg heiling at presidential events, and absolving German right-wing nationalists of the weight of the millions of souls their grandparents murdered in the Holocaust. They’ve been joking about the Holocaust and then handing the mic to neonazis. And the neonazis appreciate it: they’re looking forward to the dawn of a new age where their beliefs and ideas are not anathema to American society but normalized at every level, all the way to the top of the American government.
In such a situation, when analyzed from all angles – how could I not worry for the American Jewish communities???
“It can’t happen here.”
…
Here’s to me being entirely wrong and the new reign of POTUS and party ushering in an age of prosperity for all.
May I be so very, very wrong.
Cheers! 🍻
Culture and values.
People talk a lot about culture and values.
Almost always from a collectivist viewpoint – almost never in regards to the personal culture, the subjective values, of the human individual.
And to a certain extent, this is understandable. Culture is something most of us experience socially, as a group; most of us never fully develop our personal cultures, language, idiom, semiotic discourse with ourselves. And it’s quite easy to assume that values are facts of nature, rather than agreed upon claims about resources, let alone the ultimately subjective claim of an object, entity, or idea’s worth, utility, or necessity. We’re conditioned to think of culture and values in terms of the collective.
And the collective has value. Don’t get me wrong – we exist as parts of social units, species, ecosystems. The collective dimension of our existence is inescapable.
But a truly meritocratic society – a truly egalitarian society – a truly horizontal society – cultivates the perfection not just of the collective but of the individual, seeks the perfection of the collective through the self-actualization of its individual members; rewards the development and the expression of the individual’s perspective, insight, culture, and values, which in turn catalyze, influence, become part of the collective discourse.
There are rising forces in the world that seek the suppression of the human individual, made in the image of our Creator, and the individual’s subordination to the culture and values of their collectives. Groups on the political right, now gaining popularity and power around the world, and groups on the political left, also gaining popularity and power around the world, are united in their opposition to the freedom and selfhood that is the birthright of all of us made in that image.
Don’t let them suppress you.
Cultivate yourself.
Develop your own culture and values.
Be free.
Restoring a meritocracy by re-allowing discrimination across federal departments, organizations, and contractors?
Hwut
🧐
For some political groups (that have now united under POTUS and his party), complaints about the allegedly anti-meritocratic nature of DEI (and before it affirmative action) were always just a smokescreen for the real problem: the advancement of non-white, non-Christian minorities in domains that previously excluded them and exploited them.
In this respect, the sum effect of the executive orders and actions from the past week is to stifle meritocracy in America, not restore it.
Withdrawing security protection from subordinates-turned-critics now targeted by the Iranian regime for their public former roles in pursuing anti-Iranian policy during the first term.
Halting refugee flights for refugees targeted by the Taliban regime swept back into power with the sudden withdrawal of American troops at the end of the first term.
Do you sense the double face behind these moves?
Condemn the terrorists, help the terrorists?
Read Orwell
Read the room
I know many people who voted for the current POTUS. Family, friends, colleagues.
All for a variety of different reasons, all supporting this piece of POTUS agenda but not that piece, or vice versa, or whatever. Not that they’d ever give full-throated support for fascism.
Or maybe they would.
I don’t know, even people we love can be manipulated into supporting the wrong things. 🤷
Anyway, this post is for them:
You – my friends, my family, my colleagues – want what’s best for the USA. I get that. I, and many other sane, rational people who are alarmed by the changes promised and so far made by POTUS and his party, want what’s best for the USA too.
We need to extend that assumption of good faith to each other.
You think the next four years are going to make the USA a better country. I get that too. But what I, and many other sane, rational critics of POTUS agenda, believe is that – despite the promises of a meritocracy – the next four years are going to see a radical increase of state and corporate power over the lives of Americans, organized along religious and racial lines.
We’ll see whose prediction of the next four years is more on target:
Either four years will go by leaving Americans more free and prosperous than ever before,
Or long before then – perhaps very soon – the mask will come off and you’ll see the agenda for what it is.
As of now, my plan is – alongside my poems, my prayers, my musings, my Torah, my Zionism – to keep publicly sharing my thoughts on POTUS, his party, Project 2025, and neoreaction, because I think the other shoe has finally dropped and it’s time to start making targeted, strategic critiques of the situation in America, specifically from the viewpoint I’ve reached over the last 20 years. I don’t plan on playing any partisan games or foaming at the mouth at every trigger, but do expect to see some particular opinions and criticisms expressed, just as I have my opinions and criticisms of Israeli politics.
Trust: It’s not TDS. It’s just a critical viewpoint reached after years of researching POTUS and his funders, allies, and advisors.
If at any point along this ride over the coming weeks and months you would like to have a private conversation with me about my concern regarding the rise of American fascism, or your own growing doubts about the political movement you’ve bought into, message me and we’ll set up a time for a FB call. No need to worry about trolls or the like on a public post jumping on your @$$ for how you voted in any of the past elections.
If and when you want to have an open discussion about the other perspective on POTUS agenda – let’s talk.
Never too late to change your mind.
The POTUS executive orders and other executive actions from the past week show two things:
1) Project 2025 is absolutely a dominant force in this second term. Many policies and key personnel are being determined by a white nationalist / Christian fundamentalist agenda that is being implemented without any meaningful resistance (or signs of awareness) from the opposition party. Individual judges, bureaucrats , and politicians are resisting the rapid unconstitutional transformation of the US federal government here and there but the party expected to most effectively oppose POTUS and his party are mostly going along with the new order of things. Maybe Bibi should order some more airstrikes on residential buildings to see if they’re still paying attention at all.
(Sarcasm, friends.)
2) POTUS, despite his effluent rhetoric of freedom, is clearly all about unlimited power. Slogans aside, none of this is about the US Constitution, or law and order, or liberty for the people that make America great. It’s about power, seizing and wielding power from the Oval Office to remake America in the image of one political group’s fever dream, with the eager support of America’s corporate crony class (especially the tech and defense corporations). This expansive vision of corporate state power is not conservative and not libertarian (and certainly not aligned with the classical liberalism of the founding fathers of the USA).
It is fascistic.
(You were expecting everyone to make awkward gestures from the podium, my friends?)
Sigh
It’s gonna be a bumpy ride
Morning musing (extremely controversial, yes, but read the whole thing carefully):
I don’t follow the news cycle religiously or play the partisan political game/culture war currently strangling American political discourse. I mostly follow the news at a distance, do my research when necessary, and form an opinion from the highest vantage point I can reach.
That said, upon careful review, the inaugural speech he gave and the executive orders the POTUS signed upon entering the Oval Office seem much like everything else he does in the White House: an assortment of White Nationalist, Christian fundamentalist, and corrupt oligarchic moves, engineered by his neoreactionary funders and advisors to turn the USA into a white nationalist Christo-fascist colonizing megastate dominating the north western hemisphere and sharing multipolar geopolitical power with its Russian, Iranian, and Chinese frenemies – interwoven with many innocuous and cliched decisions and pronouncements that are, honestly, hard to object to in their banality, common sense obviousness, and/or practical irrelevance.
This is how fascist rhetoric works: It covers the true agenda, which is carried out in broad daylight, behind an obfuscating mask of patriotism, populism, and plausible deniability. Supporters are duped by the mask, but critics fatally stumble in ignoring the mask.
The popular Leftist reaction to the current POTUS – treating everything he says and does as an outrageous sin – is completely ineffective against the rise of racialized neo-fascism in America, as demonstrated by the failure to erode his populist base and prevent him from entering a second term. People are not convinced by hysterics and, with so much mud in the waters (amply supplied by the above mentioned frenemies and poured across the media networks owned by the administration and its cronies), can not differentiate between the real and the reactionary criticism.
That is a real problem that requires a complete shift in rhetorical approach, not more of the same triggered outrage. Critics, dissenters, and resisters of the current trend need to Level Up and make targeted, unassailable, and effective moves – not keep playing into the hands of bad actors who have steadily advanced their agenda while their opponents subject each other to endless purity tests.
I don’t know for sure what the next four years will bring. I could be wrong about everything I see and what I think it means for the USA and the world, and above all I believe that it is in the hands of the Heavens. But I do think that the choice is left to us – and we need to make effective, strategic choices, especially when the stakes are increasing.
Among many other things, Elon Musk is a white supremacist and a white collar fascist. There will be so many times to call him out, with incontrovertible receipts, over the coming weeks and months, that coming hard at the ADL for not immediately throwing the book at him for what could easily be shrugged off as just an excited wave 🙄 from an awkward and unlikable government official, doesn’t make sense in terms of good praxis.
The name of the game is pick your shots and don’t miss.